User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2010/September

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Charlesdrakew. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Domestic Violence

Charles why do you keep undoing our addition of the very important information regarding The Gender Paradigm on the Domestic Violence page? This information is backed up by at least 52 references that Dr. Don Dutton (an expert in the subject) has spent countless years researching and studying. How can you say it is POV material? The entire entry on Domestic violence is a radical feminists POV on the subject. You are guilty of vandalism and will be reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saveservices (talk • contribs) 22:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Dating

Dear Charlesdrakew, Thanks for input and for doing the reversion. I understand and quite accept the rationale. My apologies for making the changes before your response arrived. Regards David Hirst 10:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynamicpricing (talk • contribs)

Ramsgate

Hello Charles, I left a comment about one of your edits on Talk:Ramsgate. Just thought I'd let you know in case you care to comment. pgr94 (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Please leave me alone

Don't tell me what to do please. I am adult and I conduct myself the way I want to. I don't care how "things are done here". Is this a cult? Or is this America where free speech is allowed? Why don't you stay out of the situation before you get insulted thank you.

EducatedLady —Preceding unsigned comment added by Educatedlady (talk • contribs) 08:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You are not behaving like an adult, and this is actually a world-wide encyclopedia.--Charles (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Because of this individual, a German law professor from last year, some (insert worldview here) fundamentalists, and a few other people who think they're supposed to get special treatment because of their offline lives, I'm considering putting up an essay titled "Noone cares who you are." Do you know if we already have anything like this, and if not, would you be interested in adding your own views? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

And no one cares who you are either IAN. I never once came on here bragging about credentials. That was not my intention. However after repeated attacks by creativesoul and you I decided to list them. I don't want special treatment, and do not expect it. So don't DARE assume anything about me. YOU DO NOT KNOW ME. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Educatedlady (talk • contribs) 20:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You should have watched you were not being followed on the way over here Ian! I have not come across anything such as you suggest, but I have not been looking. Might be worth asking at the village pump. Go for it I say and I will be interested to see how it goes.--Charles (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, they told me we already have User:Misza13/Nobody_cares_about_your_credentials, Wikipedia:Credentials_are_irrelevant, Wikipedia:Ignore_all_credentials, and Wikipedia:Expert_editors#Warnings_to_expert_editors, which all say what I wanted to in a more concise and pleasant fashion that I would have. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice.--Charles (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:83.160.84.254

Hi, I don't know the right procedures or the right templates to use here on enwiki, but this anon user should be blocked, because he is still removing referenced facts and changing it to his/her POV. Since you added the final warning, I thought it'd be easiest to inform you. Thanks, SPQRobin (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

?!

How is posting POV warning "not adhering to POV policy". Quite the contrary, the article is very biased, and posting warning is certainly just tagging that. This arbitrary way "wikipedia" people like you do things is just silly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.154.3 (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Read the article talpage where there has been ongoing discussion which has not found any evidence of POV.--Charles (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

205.158.76.100

Hi, this user has made several vandalism edits since your final warning two weeks ago, so I think he should be blocked. Here is his contribution history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/205.158.76.100. The changes to the Miami Hurricanes football roster were complete nonsense and he inserted names into the 5th avenue article for no reason. Thanks. Eiad77 (talk) 07:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be low level stuff mixed with legitamate edits from a shared IP. I reported it and the IP has been blocked, but only for a day and a half. I do not really see any need for shared IPs to be allowed to edit when it is so easy to make an account.--Charles (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks for the notification. 81.134.137.34 (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Elsing church

Hi Charles. What an attractive church; it reminds me of a Sussex church I can't quite place. (Ringmer?) I'm going on a course in London for a couple of days, but after I get back (Friday night) I'll take a closer look and make any tweaks/additions I can. Have a look on Heritage Gateway for listing information; it's bound to be at least Grade II*, if not Grade I. Incidentally I might start List of places of worship in Horsham (district) at some point later this year, if I get the urge. More research needed first though! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks--Charles (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent article on the Church - good on'ya Motmit (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Finally got round to adding/tweaking some bits ... sorry about that. It's looking pretty good at this stage; all relevant points are covered. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou to both the above.--Charles (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for spotting and reverting the recent edits on the Christchurch page. The article is currently under review and although I'm sure the edits were made in good faith, they weren't helpful to the cause. Thanks again--Ykraps (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Your disinformation campaign

Please cease from undoing my corrections to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza#Materials in which I correct the false report that the Great Pyramid sides were 440 royal cubits in length. If you do it again be prepared to supply RELIABLE references, as you failed to do so last time. My source is Flinders Petrie who actually measured the pyramid. What's yours? Oh, you don't actually have one do you? Because not one person who ever took actual measurements of the Great Pyramid has reported that the sides were originally 440 cubits. I didn't happen to see any references cited after the number 440. You are therefore in violation of Wikipedia conditions of use by reverting my referenced corrections to the unreferenced prior state. I suggest you stop IMMEDIATELY unless you have a real good explanation for making stuff up and posting it in Wikipedia. I see you are associated with the Christchurch and other such pages based completely on a fairy tale. That explains much about your lack of respect for actual facts and you compulsion to insert falsehoods into the Great Pyramid page. I suggest that your time would be better spent in primitive god worship. Making if you sacrifice enough bulls to your god he will change all of the Giza survey data so it actually matches your made up data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.120.71 (talk • contribs) (aka Northstar2595).

Just because an editor edits a page relating to Christianity doesn't mean anything about their religious or lack of religious beliefs. I'm a Baptist, but I edit a lot of pages relating to Buddhism, Islam, and Satanism. It's honestly a bit ignorant to assume something about someone's personal life just because of what they edit, and downright ass-backwards-minded to attack them because of it. Looking at the article, there's the reference <ref>Dilke (1987) pp.9,23.</ref>, so I don't see where you're getting this unreferenced business from. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What the hell are you rambling on about Northstar 2595? If you are referring to my edits of Christchurch, Dorset that is a town not a church you plonker. I did not write the Great Pyramid data and if you think it should be changed discuss it on the article talkpage instead of edit warring. And if I do choose to sacrifice the odd bull I fail to see what relevance it has to the article.--Charles (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)