User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2013/August
Midhurst ArticleI have no idea why you deleted a relevant link to very good and relevant pictures of midhurst that I added to the references section of the Midhurst entry. I put a lot of time and effort into my creative work and the link is most certainly not spam. I await your explanation and apology for this insult.
As someone with deep personal family roots in the town I wanted to contribute some images to the article. I had written a piece which included images of historic buildings in the town, which are better than the ones in the article. All very relevant. As the wiki article concerning external links says, link spamming is typically when a website is continuously linked to multiple articles. I made one link to a relevant piece. I couldn't care less about back links from wikipedia, one link from a weak article on a town with a rich history is hardly going to make or break my site, I wanted to contribute. It's a shame but this experience just confirms the generally held belief that wikipedia is run by a small number of pseudo-academics who get their kicks acting as self-appointed gatekeepers of knowledge ... it's kinda sad for you don't you think!
A requestCould you please help me with something? 94.168.211.221 (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Worth School, July 22Hi Charles. My reason for removing from the page "Worth School" the paragraph you restored earlier today is different from the reason you suggest, and is twofold. The set of events the paragraph reports is, as a whole, not yet stable/settled, as the paragraph itself states; according to several news reports including the cited source, civil legal action between the parties reported on is on-going. It is the case, therefore, that at least some of the matters reported in the source, and then repeated in the paragraph, are disputed between the parties to this sad set of events. My own sense of the proper use of Wikipedia (which may be badly tuned on this point, perhaps) is that the appropriate neutrality of an encyclopedia article is difficult to achieve in such a situation, and the potential exists for bias to be exhibited in an unhelpful manner. In effect, this is a piece of news, suited to a news site, not a piece of Wikipedia content. Second, there is an issue of proportionality; as a component of the article section on the history of the institution it describes, the paragraph is too long. Its happening to be contemporary does not render it of greater substance than other historical material in the article which is covered in a more succinct manner. I was attempting to suggest all of this, in headline form, by describing the paragraph I removed as essentially an over-detailed news report. I hope this assists you in understanding my action. Thank you. (Lanspergius (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC))
Teahouse HostYeah.. OK Sir; but it's my pleasure to assist wiki contributors with worthy. Anyways, I will try to apply again after gaining fair knowledge. --Pancyadams (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Are you currently accepting adoptees?Hello Charlesdrakew, Are you currently accepting adoptees? If yes, can you adopt me? V/R, Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Thankyou Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC) HighRocks LinkHi Charles. The southernsandstoneclimbs.co.uk link I think is appropriate. We are a central point of information for the southern sandstone outcrops in the area, including High Rocks. We a conservation website, promoting the issues about the delicate sandstone and climbers who are currently allowed to climb on the rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmajayda (talk • contribs) 14:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Regents ParkHi Charles, I live in North London, and especially go to Regents Park practically everyday, since I was 4 years to my 29 years of age now. I know the roads like the back of my hand, and I stand around everyday and can see from 6pm - 7pm that the level of cyclists are at unprecendented levels. In addition to that, when I then drive home, I am usually slowed down by large gaggles of professional cyclists who dominate large sections of the road as they go about training. This numbers in excess of 20, but sometimes goes to 50 on most days at certain parts of the evening. I don't think there's any way of you verfiying that unless you either visit that area for yourself, or ask a Regents Park/ London Zoo employee/ contributer on this site for further information if that is their experience too. Please re-instate that section if agreed, as I beieve it is valid and does not require a reference. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellothere84 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The Mayor of CasterbridgeHello Charles, Thank you for your recent contributions to The Mayor of Casterbridge article. The contributions by User: Santamoly are clearly against Wikipedia policy and they have even attempted to comment on my User page (not Talk page!). With unfortunate timing, I'm off on holiday for a week, so will be unable to check any developments - although I have asked a administrator to look at developments. With best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Charles, you appear to be unaware that the WP:Burden policy recommends that an editor "consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it"
Hello Charlesdrakew. Just to let you know, in light of the most recent reversion by Santamoly, I've just filed a report against them at the edit warring noticeboard. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
BalcombeHey, how about going over to Balcombe and taking some pictures. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Joseph Smith - FACHello Charlsedrakew, I have put the article on Joseph Smith up as a nominee for Featured Article Status! I think the article has come a long way, and has a very good chance of being featured this time around. I would personally appreciate it if you took a moment to review the article and vote for it (or against it, I suppose) at it's FAC. Thanks! --Trevdna (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC) |
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia