This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
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)
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)
On 4 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Mary's Church, Elsing, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
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).
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)
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)
Dropping a comment and running off like you did here is not discussing. Please discuss. --Yopienso (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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 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).
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
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
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
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