User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2014/March

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.

Konigsberg 1905

Good evening Charles, I see you appear to have removed my amendments to the text re the end of KBG etc.. As a KBG historian of some years what I wrote is correct. What is in the text is wrong. Perhaps we can collaborate and get the facts correct once and for all. I live in Poole where are you.. Rgds Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuzama (talk • contribs) 23:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Received yours. In order to clear up the story can we talk. Do you have a contact number.. Rgds Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuzama (talk • contribs) 23:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Kazuma. You added some new material without a new (or any) reference. You also added to text in front of an existing offline reference, which may be correct but it would help if you said what you were doing in the edit summary. Wikipedia is not going to take your word for anything and does not care about your credentials. We need citations. I do not have any information on the fate of the ship but I have a passing interest as my late father-in law worked in northern Tanzania growing sisal.

My user page says as much as I am going to reveal about myself. I do have email enabled, which is rarely used, but I generally prefer to discuss things here. Stuff about the ship is best discussed at the article talk page so any other editors with sources can be involved.--Charles (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Good morning, I have amended a few items and added my references. Have you read the piece in the KBG talk re my previous emails with Nate in the US. Regrettably Hoyt 's book 1965 was biased in favour of the Germans and for many years was used as a reference. However it turns out that his sources were suspect and these myths were also perpetrated by Miller, resulting in a garbled story. I wrote two books on KBG after years of research and would like to see the matter put straight. If I do the corrections with the references can you help with pasting them in. Rgds Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuzama (talk • contribs) 10:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Kevin, I think I might have the solution we've needed since we talked last year - I'm going to overhaul the article using Die Deutschen Kriegschiffe (see for instance what I've been able to do to SMS Kaiser Wilhelm II - here is the "before" for comparison). Most or all of Miller and Hoyt will fall out of the article in the process and it should result in a better article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good outcome. Thanks both of you.--Charles (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the update. This looks promising. Will send a KBG article to Nate tonight.92.22.93.209 (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've finished overhauling the article and it no longer uses Hoyt or Miller. Parsecboy (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Good morning Charles. Thank you for your response. Not sure if you are referring to KBG 1905 or TSAVO..However I should point out as a long standing ex Kenya resident and a writer of eleven books on EA military and transport history I am not one to put dross into print which appears to be the case in some pages on the net. I use research from contemporary files at Kew as well as in Zanzibar, Mombasa and Dar es Salaam. As one who wrote an acknowledged KBG history, I do not put anything on Wiki which is not true or can not be substantiated by refs. I have been in touch with Nate at length about KBG.. In the case of Tsavo I quoted Patterson 1907 who wrote the book on the subject of the lions.. Rgds Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuzama (talk • contribs) 10:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

In your latest edit to SMS K 1905 you did not even give an edit summary of why you were doing it. You changed facts without giving new citations. You removed an existing citation and changed the meaning of the sentence without giving any source. Wikipedia does not care about your credentials as a historian. We need citations to reliable sources and we will go with those rather than any original research which may contradict them. Please sign your talk page posts.--Charles (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Adoption

Hello, I was wondering if you can accept me for adoption as I wish to have a good start on Wikipedia, I am interested in editing Aviation Articles and maybe even some Anti-Vandalism work as I hate seeing random vandalism on pages, if you are available to adopt feel free to reply here or on my talk page. B2StealthLike (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes certainly. I am always pleased to help editors looking to write good content. Just ask. From your username I am guessing that will be military aviation? The more eyes watching for sneaky vandalism the better.--Charles (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Perfect ! So I was already given a link to start editing on Aviation articles so that should not seem like a problem anymore, I'd say I would like to know more on how I can reduce vandalism, customize my user page and make one that looks decent along with the talk page and maybe even to create my own article one day. B2StealthLike (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

In the "interaction" box in the left margin there is a link to recent changes. If you have time to spare click on this and look for IP addresses changing things. Many of these will be vandalism although many others are constructively fixing typos and suchlike. Add articles you are interested in to your watchlist and check it regularly for changes. For your userpage there is a whole editing suite here. Enjoy.--Charles (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Much Appreciated ! Thanks for everything. :) B2StealthLike (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Charles,
Thanks for reverting the little shit!,
Very much appreciated :)
Regards -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure.--Charles (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

St Patrick's Hall

• Interesting/good to see another UoR attendee :) Also interesting to see that you have a BSc, which is the qualification/standard/whatever that my degree course will give me if I pass! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• BSc (Hons) actually. What subject you doing?--Charles (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, fair enough :) I'm doing Chemistry. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Have they still got the double helical stairs in the chemistry department?--Charles (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• They do indeed, but no-one ever pays attention as to which is the "up" and which is the "down" staircase (because that's effort). And LT2 still keeps flooding from time to time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

-- or cuppa tea. For your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Patrick's Hall, I thank you for being observant. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

10 Feb Worth School Edit

Thanks for appropriate editing of the material in the section "Death of a Pupil" on this page. I'd appreciate your view on whether the creation of an independently titled section such as this might not itself be somewhat imbalanced. Within the existing structure of the article (which is very far from perfect!) this material surely belongs more naturally where it began, in the "History of the school" section. The events of 2011 were not the first time a pupil in the school has died, and a separate section might suggest that the article is offering prominence to this issue simply because it has been topical. Thanks Lanspergius (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Good morning to you. I quite agree it is giving undue weight. Relatives of the deceased may want this to have prominence and the school may want to to bury it, but Wikipedia is not a memorial site and it is WP:Recentism to give it a whole section.--Charles (talk) 08:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Bradford-on-Avon railway station

Per WP:BRD, please don't revert my revert - discuss instead. I've started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Usage figures: how many to show in infobox? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not part of that Wikiproject and not bound by its made-up rules. Please put this kind of trivial extended information in the body of the article. The infobox is for key facts only.--Charles (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Colne Valley Railway near Sturmer

Dear Charlesdrakew,

You deleted this from the Sturmer wikipage. Please do not do so again. If you consult a Colne Valley Railway map you will see that this line and the Stour line ran closely for a while to the east of Haverhill. The Colne Valley line used to run to Birdbrooke after Haverhill. If you look on Google map/satellite, then the route of the line is clearly visible, passing as such to the south of Sturmer Hall - by the church.

I am happy to respond to any reply you may have.

Racine_007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Racine 007 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:Citing sources and provide reliable sources. Then it will not be deleted.--Charles (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Charles,

Could you let me know why you removed the External links... As they are directed at some amazing zoology educational charts... — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilKidd85 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of links.--Charles (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

"Infobox bloat"

I have reverted this edit which removed 10 years of usage statistics from the infobox on the grounds that they did not appear in the article. Things in the infobox do not necessarily need to appear in the article as they are standard information, for instance grid references. If you wish to dispute how many years' worth should be in the infobox you may, but the discussion should be had at WT:UKRAIL, not a single station article. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit! Ten years of usage statistics are nothing like a grid reference. Get real.--Charles (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It is accepted that usage statistics go in the infobox. If you wish to dispute how many years' worth should be there, do it at the relevant wikiproject. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)