User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2010/December

Arain

I would surely love to cite a reliable source to the above mentioned content. But there are two problems here, The first one being that most of the literature on the topic is quiet old and in local languages rather than english. This does also mean that the book do not have any ISBNs and stuff. Secondly, the reliability is the issue. What may be considered as reliable by me might not be considered reliable by you. So how do you get around these problems? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Shemyal Nisar (talk • contribs) 11:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The story about the Arain being desended from an Arab army is frequently added to this article and has always been removed as having no proven basis in fact. Because something is often said does not mean it is true.--Charles (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that My questions remain unanswered. Well there is loads of literature available but unfortunately it not in English rather in local languages. That is why I asked it particularly. Plus what kind of proof are you looking for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Shemyal Nisar (talk • contribs) 09:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not for me to decide. You need to go to the article talk page and discuss this there.--Charles (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for St Mary's Church, Elsing

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

An update from adopt a user

Hi there Charlesdrakew/Archives/2010! You may be wondering, what have I done to sound the alarm this time? Nothing. I'm messaging you in regards to the adopt-a-user program, which currently has a backlog of users wishing to be adopted. This doesn't make much sense, as we have a considerable list of users offer adoption, so there shouldn't be any backlog. I've begun to eliminate this backlog myself through a matching program, but I need your help to make it work. Of course, adoptees and adopters don't have to go through there, but I believe it helps eliminate the backlog because someone is actively matching pairs.

On the list of adopters, I have modified the middle column to say "Interests." It's easier working with other users that have similar interests, so if it's not too much to ask, could you add your interests in the middle column? For example, if I was interested in hurricanes, computers, business, and ... reptiles? I would place those in the middle column. Counter-vandalism and the like can also be included (maintenance should be used as the general term). The more interests, the better, since adoptees can learn more about you and choose the one they feel most comfortable working with. The information about when you're most active and other stuff can go into the "Notes" section to the right.

Finally, I've gone around and asked adoptees (and will in the future) to fill in a short survey so adopters can take the initiative and contact users they feel comfortable working with. We all know that most adoptees just place the adopt me template on their user page and leave it - so it's up to us to approach them and offer adoption. So, please take a look at the survey, adopt those that fit your interests, and maybe watchlist it so you can see the interests of adoptees and adopt one that fits your interests in the future.

Once again, thank you for participating in the adopt-a-user program! If you wish to respond to this post, please message me on my talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 05:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC).

User:Pushbutton

I don't think they have a COI, If I'm right they're a former Butlin's Redcoat (1970's-1980's era) and one of the Butlin's Historians that regularly contributes to the improvement of Butlinsmemories.com - if anything the biggest COI would be if they were regularly citing information they had written for butlinsmemories. Obviously the fact their account is named after Pushbuttonclick led to the unchallenged COI on that Article, but I'm not even sure if that applied - simply being part of the cast of a theatrical performance which played at multiple venues is hardly a COI. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it does seem a coincidence that the account first appeared two weeks after Wearebutlins was warned off. The recent spate of changes are much in line with what Butlins were aiming to achieve.--Charles (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right that it's not purely coincidence, looking at Pushbutton's past contributions they previously added a lot of 1980-1999 historical detail to the article so they aren't specifically taking a modernist view. They've also edited a lot of Australian Articles which pretty much confirms them to be the same account as PushButton on Butlinsmemories, the WeareButlins site is run by someone named David M who also has an account on Butlinsmemories. This thread over there is particularly telling. I think Pushbutton's edits are in Good Faith; but I don't know whether wearebutlins is using butlinsmemories to push an agenda onto other potential WP editors or whether the general talk of the 75th anniversary is just encouraging potential WP editors to update the modern history of the camps, either way I don't think it's a direct COI or SockPuppet issue. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on this. I am probably being paranoid because of previous agressive attempts by Butlins staff to control the page.--Charles (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Peterborough Cathedral link

Hi,

I noticed that you've removed a link I put to my website showing photos of Peterborough Cathedral. I'm an enthusiast photographer who takes photos of local churches and cathedrals. For example, Ely Cathedral's website contains my photos (which I donated), and I am keen to use my sites to encourage people to visit these cathedrals and churches in person. I am not professional and do not get paid, and have made this website specifically for Peterborough Cathedral photos and contains no advertising or commercial elements. I'd like to know why the link was removed, and what I need to do to ensure that it, and similar sites, can be listed on Wikipedia, as I intend to produce more websites. I intend to provide more history associated with each photo on the website in time. I also notice that there is a Flickr link for photos, which has been allowed, so I'm keen to know the policies that are being applied.

Mark Markrichardheath (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Basically Wikipedia does not accept links to self published websites. I refer you to External links. You can always upload photos (without copyright) to Wikimedia Commons where a link from the cathedral page will lead to them. I see there are some other links there which should come out.--Charles (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Dropping a comment and running off like you did here is not discussing. Please discuss. --Yopienso (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit of Air Cadet sub section of wiki.

Thank you for reviewing this edit (with regards to the edit on the Air Cadet description)and rightfully removing it. I will admit that the grammar was appalling. Is this your only issue with the edit? As I would like to re-submit the edit without the grammatical failings you highlighted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.98.166.49 (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble to contact me. It was mainly the excess of capital letters and I had better things to do at the time than sort it out myself. Everything in Wikipedia should have a reference for verifiability so that people cannot say "anyone can post stuff that is not true on here". If you can find a newspaper article or website about the unit that would help. Do ask again if you need advice.--Charles (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi Charles. I'm a newbie looking for adoption. I just copyedited the article on the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing of 1963. Can you direct me to some how-to resources and anything else that might be helpful? I'm interested in occasional copyediting, and some content editing related to my current research interests, including the US African-American civil rights movement, book design, book history, and typography. I'm unsure of basic how-to stuff though, and feel like a drunken shopkeeper in a glassware store. Ynottry (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Ynottry

Hi Ynottry and welcome.

Lesson one; when adding new sections to talk pages we put them at the bottom. I have set a robot to achive the oldest sections at the top when the page has a certain number of sections. At least you know how to sign, unlike many newbies.

But seriously nobody will mind you making mistakes when they are made in good faith. It is just vandals who piss us off. It would be worth you taking the time to read WP:Manual of Style and WP:Citing sources. If you are interested in copyediting there is a Guild of copyeditors. The 16th Street article is very short of in-line references. You can find templates for adding them here and here. A lot of work can be saved by copying and pasting bits and pieces that are useful such as these templates. There is a button on the edit bar which inserts references where your cursor is.

I hope you enjoy editing here and do contact me anytime.--Charles (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Charles. I think I'm getting the hang of it. I've added several citations per your suggestions. Feedback is appreciated.Ynottry (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Ynottry

Just doing some template maintenance for adopt-a-user, Charlesdrakew, would you mind me changing Ynottry's template to show that you've adopted him? Of course, it could be left there too. Netalarm^talk 04:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do. Thanks.--Charles (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you be interested in being an advisor about a documentary on the Panama Canal?

Hello, I noticed that you have more than ten edits on the Panama Canal article. First of all I would like to say thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Secondly, I am writing to ask you if you would consider participating as an advisor to a group producing a documentary about the canal and its history. If this is of interest to you please drop me a note on my talk page. Thank you for your time. Psingleton (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I just revert vandalism. I do not have any particular knowledge of the canal.--Charles (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, Charlesdrakew/Archives/2010! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! The ArbiterTalk 02:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well thank you, and you too. It's good to see you back in action.r--Charles (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Corunna revision

Dear Charles,

it seems you do not appreciate my revision of the Battle of Corunna page. Can you explain the grounds for your repeated reversal of my revision? Especially considering that I subsequently backed up that revision with empiricism?

Schpinbo (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Schpinbo

The infobox refers to the actual battle, not to subsequent events, which are covered in the article.--Charles (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The strategic consequences of a battle are, of necessity, always only known after a battle takes place. By your rationale, there can never be a "strategic victory" reference in a wikipedia infobox. Permit me to suggest that the substance of the history of the battle under discussion - in which the British forces disembarked and the French held the actual ground of battle - speaks dispassionately and objectively to a French strategic victory.

Schpinbo —Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC).

The strategic victory by the French forces had been achieved long before this battle which is why the British were at Corunna waiting to be evacuated. They would have already left if the transport fleet had arrived earlier. It is misleading to say that this battle was the cause of them leaving. And please sign your comments by clicking the button in the toolbar.--Charles (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Your point about a strategic victory for the French being an _a priori_ outcome is well-taken. But your point does not argue against mine. The British won a tactical victory insofar as the French forces retreated in the face of superior British tactics. The French won a strategic victory insofar as the British forces retreated in teh face of superior French strategy. Battles have tactical as well as strategic outcomes, and it is not inconceivable that a crushing British victory would have actually kept their land forces in northwest Spain.

Schpinbo (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Schpinbo

Your response also leaves unexplained your decision to delete further bibliographical references that add substance to the view of a French strategic victory. You queried the objectivity of the original bibliographic citation, after all.

Schpinbo (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Schpinbo

The infobox is not the place for discussion. It should be discussed on the talk page. The infobox is only about the tactical battle. The battle did not change the srategic situation and claiming that it might have changed it in the British favour is speculation which has no place here.--Charles (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You continue to reverse my additional bibliographical citations without explanation. Claiming the source I have used is possibly subjective, you then seek to prohibit further sources from being used. Meanwhile, bibliographical citations supporting your view are retained. Secondly, I have added no "discussion" in the inbox of a type different than what was already there, and which you see no need to remove (in fact, this "discussion" is a footnote with additional prose near the bottom of the page). Thirdly, the infobox is not only about the "tactical battle": countless wikipedia pages on histories of battles show differing strategic and tactical outcomes. Please provide evidence of wikipedia guidelines indicating that only the "tactical battle" as opposed to the "strategic battle" can be referenced in the infobox. Finally, your reference to my "speculation" having no place here misses my point; namely, that the strategic consequences of a battle are not predetermined.

Schpinbo (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Schpinbo

Your removal of the tag placed by Kansas Bear was out of order. I see Kansas Bear has now put it back again. None of this stuff should be in the infobox. Discuss it on the talkpage.--Charles (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no "stuff" in the inbfobox, nor any "discussion." I take note of your refusal to deal with the issues I have raised.

Schpinbo (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Schpinbo

I take note of your failure to raise this on the article talkpage as is normal. You are conflating the battle with the overall and pre-existing French strategic victory (although Napoleon did call the Spanish campaign a running sore which bled away his resources). It is just plain misleading to label the battle as the cause of the strategic victory.--Charles (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Chichester Singers' affliation with Chichester Cathedral?

You seem to have the impression that the Chichester Singers should be included in the Chichester Cathedral article, despite the fact that the Singers have no official affiliation with the Cathedral. I have edited out the section on the Chichester Singers as there really is no reason why they should be included. Just because they perform some concerts there does not mean they are a part of the Cathedral. Willwal, Talk 20 December 2010 17:38 GMT

The Chichester Singer's website states "All our major concerts are in Chichester Cathedral." They are therefore part of the musical scene at the cathedral. I do not see why not being on the cathedral payroll should preclude them from being mentioned. Please do not delete them again or use sockpuppets, as you have done in the past, to delete them.--Charles (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)