User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2010/April

Thanks mate

Ian.thomson (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

This is English, of course. I would have reported him by now, but I didn't want to make it appear as if I was out to get him. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Several different editors have reverted him now, showing that he is well out of order, as we say in England. That pint went down well once I had warmed it up a bit in the microwave.--Charles (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You have it backwards

excuse me?? I'm trying to do the OPPOSITE......which is to GET RID of the bias and lack of neutrality that's ALREADY THERE on some parts of that article.

can you tell me just where specifically I'm "violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy"?? Like in detail just how? I have arguments (that I'm sure you won't be able to answer well) that show that it was neutral wording that was actually putting in that article, TO REMOVE SOME OF THE BIASED TONE THAT WAS ALREADY THERE. so tell me, sir......how exactly (unless you're just biased and in the tank yourself) was I violating the "neutral policy"? Sweetpoet (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A number of reputable editors clearly do not agree.--Charles (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

These "reputable editors" that you refer to are biased committed Darwinists.   And are not the most objective (at least with this matter).   Who are we kidding here??   I don't take away from their work in general, but there are parts of this Evolution article that state opinions as facts, that are really actually things in dispute.   The wording is biased and not neutral in certain areas.   But stated dogmatically.   It seems that there is much bias going on here.   And slanting.   The phrase in one part of the article was simply an opinion but was stated as fact.   No real objectivity.   "However, these ideas contradict Darwin's own views," is really a matter of interpretation and it's actually just an OPINION.   And it shows bias and lack of fair objectivity.   Many creationists believe that the views of Social Darwinism DON'T "contradict" many of Darwin's own views.   So I made the statement MORE OBJECTIVE....saying that "however, the consensus among most evolutionists today is that these ideas contradict Darwin's own views".   Phrasing it THAT way is no longer an opinion, but an objective fact.   But saying dogmatically and assertively "these ideas contradict Darwin's views" is MORE OF AN OPINION THAN AN ACTUAL NEUTRAL STATEMENT OF FACT.   Is "advanced races of men will eliminate the savage races" (written by Darwin) a "view" contradicted by the idea of Social Darwinism?   I was giving the info that creationists bring up sometimes, but done IN A NEUTRAL WAY......for the READER to decide.....and NOT for someone like YOU to decide for them.   Remember.......this is NOT a blog.   This article is not supposed to be a pro-Darwinism blog.......but simply a rounded-out OBJECTIVE AND NEUTRAL presentation.   And no one person can dominate it or "own" it, or get arrogant over it.   Again, the original statement: "However, these ideas contradict Darwin's own views" IS A MATTER THAT IS IN CONTENTION, and is just your opinion.   There's NOT total agreement on that.   But the statement of "most evolutionists say that these contradict Darwin's views" is simply a neutral fact.   And so it should be stated that way.     peace out... Sweetpoet (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You were told to take it to the talkpage but you continued to edit war. I could have got you blocked for that, but hopefully you will learn to follow our procedures. Please now take your soapbox elsewhere.--Charles (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello Charlesdrakew, Celestialwarden11 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello, fellow Wikipedian! I am so, so happy and honored for this chance for us to talk. If you need anything, or if you simply want to chat, I am right here for you, pal! Also remember, to spread the joy! Wikipedia may not be the most cheerful place to be, but YOU can help make it more cheerful! Have a fantastic day, and God bless! ^_^

		The Original Barnstar
		Please, accept this well-earned reward for your efforts here on Wikipedia, friend! May you continue to aid others and devote your fine skill to editing articles here! God bless you! Celestialwarden11 (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait, Charles, please, what, exactly, did I do wrong? Please, tell me exactly, so I can fix my mistake. Have a great day! ^_^ Celestialwarden11 (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing very bad. It is not really polite to delete messages left by other users unless they are vandalism or really offensive. The guy did have a point. Out of about 380 edits you have made so far only 7 have been on articles, compared to 213 on user talk pages. It is fine to ask questions about editing, but we all need to do some constructive work on Wikipedia. Have a good day.--Charles (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait, Charles, we all need to? You mean, if I don't make a certain number of edits now, I'll be kicked out or something? Sorry, I didn't know that about Wikipedia before... I'll try to do some more editing, but try to imagine Wikipedia without anyone to discuss the articles with. That would just not be Wikipedia. Anyway, thanks for the notice. I will try to edit more articles! Celestialwarden11 (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you won't be kicked out.--Charles (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I am really sorry. I will take care to edit more in the future, Charles. Again, thank you for pointing this out to me. ^_^ Celestialwarden11 (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My edit on Legislative Yuan was vandalism?

Why did you call my edit vandalism? I changed the flag picture back to Flag of the Republic of China.svg because Emblem of LY ROC(Taiwan).svg is a red link. I think it was deleted. Duleray (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I assumed it was somebody in mainland China claiming sovereignty over Taiwan again. If I was too hasty I apologise. Should have stopped to ckeck the flag.--Charles (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not claiming anything, and apology accepted. I guess I should type in the edit summary to reduce mistaken vandalism too. Do you have other suggestions on how to reduce misunderstandings? Duleray (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think edit summaries will do it.--Charles (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, and thank you. Duleray (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Spanish Armada Article

Regarding said article, could you please explain why the battle doesn't deserve to be considered a Decisive victory?

--SuperSmashBros.Brawl777 (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed on the article talk page a couple of times recently. Try reading it and if you think the article can be improved put your ideas on there.--Charles (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)