User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2012/April

A cup of coffee for you!

Hey! Thanks A Lot! Lips 25 (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Is there anything in particular you are interested in working on?--Charles (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I just need a help! Can u tell me how can i change my username? Lips 25 (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You can make a request here.--Charles (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the welcome Charles

Greetings from Mexico.

Fantom261092 (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Poseidon Adventure box office champ

Hello. I'm not completely sure this is how I respond to you, but I'm going to give it a go. Thank you for your helpful advice on how to add an important fact to the Wikipedia page for 1972's The Poseidon Adventure film.

I've always thought it was silly for Wikipedia to say it was the #2 film of 1972, when The Poseidon Adventure came out December 14, 1972 -- only running for 2 weeks in 1972. Obviously, I think it's more important to say it was the #1 box office champ of 1973. This is a fact recognized by the industry, and noted in many legitimate industry publications, such as Boxoffice Magazine.

It's like saying the film won a Golden Globe, and then not mentioning it received 2 Oscars.

Anyway, I understand how the tone needs to be simple and factual. I hope I have achieved that in my most recent edit of the same information.

Thank you. Punkin79 (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Some Animal crackers

Your advice worked perfectly. Please accept these poorly-made animal crackers for the tea party as a token of my gratitude.

Thanks Charles! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

1 A brownie for you!

Thanks for this sweet welcome! i'd really appreciate your help!! Keep in touch. Shilpi Ghosh (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Two

Hi! Welcome to the second edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

• Teahouse celebrates one month of being open! This first month has drawn a lot of community interest to the Teahouse. Hosts & community members have been working with the project team to improve the project in many ways including creating scripts to make inviting easier, exploring mediation processes for troubling guests, and best practices regarding mentoring for new editors who visit the Teahouse.

Springtime means fresh tea leaves...

• First month metrics report an average of 30 new editors visiting the Teahouse each week. Approximately 30 new editors participate in the Teahouse each week, by way of asking questions and making guest profiles. An average of six new questions and four new profiles are made each day. We'd love to hear your ideas about how we can spread the word about the Teahouse to more new editors.
• Teahouse has many regulars. Like any great teahouse, our Teahouse has a 61% return rate of guests, who come back to ask additional questions and to also help answer others' questions. Return guests cite the speedy response rate of hosts and the friendly, easy to understand responses by the hosts and other participants as the main reasons for coming back for another cup o' tea!
• Early metrics on retention. It's still too early to draw conclusions about the Teahouse's impact on new editor retention, but, early data shows that 38% of new editors who participate at the Teahouse are still actively editing Wikipedia 2-4 weeks later, this is compared with 7% from a control group of uninvited new editors who showed similar first day editing activity. Additional metrics can be found on the Teahouse metrics page.
• Nine new hosts welcomed to the Teahouse. Nine new hosts have been welcomed to the Teahouse during month one: Chicocvenancio, Cullen328, Hallows AG, Jeffwang, Mono, Tony1, Worm That Turned, Writ Keeper, and Nathan2055. Welcome to the Teahouse gang, folks!
• Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is a really nice way to make new editors feel welcome.

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Helllo & Thank you,

Hi Charles, thank you for your welcome and feedback, very much appreciated.Cheers, Heather — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sibunamonkey (talk • contribs) 08:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks

Hello Charles, Many thanks for your kind welcome. All the best, Clearingupthedetails (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

thanks for the cokis Armando Granados 20:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Charles. Thanks for the comments about my editing. I am getting confused about the editing process. Referencing etc. is this how I contact you? Richardsbutler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardsbutler (talk • contribs) 18:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Richard. This is indeed how you contact me. To keep the conversation in one place I am replying here and will leave a note on your talkpage so you know I have done so. To create an inline citation you put <ref> before and </ref> after the citation. In the toolbar at the top of the edit window there is a book icon. Highlight the citation and then click the icon to get this done automatically. There also has to be a {{reflist}} template in the references section to express these inline citations.

I commend the teahouse to you because there are many hosts around with a wider range of expertise than mine. Your question may have been asked by someone else and answered. I am also pleased to help here any way I can.--Charles (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the warm welcome Charles to Wikipedia!

Also, I did have a quick question for you already on image copyrights. I found an excellent resource for historic images that I would like to add to a page I am working on about the historic district I live in. However, I am confused about the copyright designation. The book is free for download through Google Books and was published in 1941. Google writes "This book is provided in digital form with the permission of the rightsholder as part of a Google project to make the world's books discoverable online

The rightsholder has graciously given you the right to download all pages of this book. No commercial or other uses have been granted

Note that all copyrights remain reserved." Does that mean that I would be unable to upload a picture from the book to reference in a Wikipedia article? Thanks for your help! ~~Cclehnen~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cclehnen (talk • contribs) 14:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cclehnen. It is usually the photographer who holds the copyright of photographs in books rather than the author so you may not be able to use them. On the other hand if the book was published in 1941 it is possible that some copyrights may have expired. I am not expert in this area and I recommend that you ask this question at the teahouse. I hope this helps.--Charles (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Charles! I posted on the Teahouse and got a helpful response back, thanks for the tip — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cclehnen (talk • contribs) 23:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Moni_Aizik for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Moni_Aizik is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moni_Aizik_(3rd_nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. jmcw (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

adopt me

please adopt me--keegan1999 (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes certainly. I have to go out now but if you have any questions I will get back to you later or tomorrow.--Charles (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

monday

i will have to talk with you on monday--keegan1999 (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Charlesdrakew/Archives/2012. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

A barnstar for you!

	The Real Life Barnstar
	You rock! Thanks for being an awesome Wikipedian and helping so much! Theopolisme (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

A kitten for you!

I like cats. My cat looks like this. Sorry for editing your page, I was just angry at you for annoying my friends, I hope we can be friends :)

BentPaperClip:. (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Stop

Please stop disrupting my friends, I don't appreciate it, they already get bullied in real life and don't deserve it as they're very hard working people!

Thank you,

Reuben — Preceding unsigned comment added by BentPaperClip:. (talk • contribs) 18:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? Remember to sign your talk page posts by typing four tildes or clicking the edit bar icon.--Charles (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I mean please stop deleting things for no reason as pages made take a long time and effort to go into, the people who's pages you're deleting are friends and care about the subjects they write about.

BentPaperClip:. (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Is that right^

No it is wrong. All of my edits are explained in the edit summary and made for sound reasons.--Charles (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Corunna

I see you're back at it again, Charles. All issues you and your allies originally raised concerning the "Battle of Corunna" page, regarding a French versus British victory, were long ago resolved. In your effort to yet again rewrite history, you see fit to eliminate references to scholarship which I added to this page, scholarship which does not fit with your own point of view. Your self-appointed role as "guardian" of this page has no foundation in Wikipedia policies or precedent. Please consult the relevant portions of the talk page for the battle, where you can continue to wage it in the manner you like. In the meantime, kindly stop deleting verifiably scholarly sources that are guilty solely of doing apparent violence to your tendentious view of the past.Schpinbo (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not the only editor who disagrees with you. Talk page consensus is against you. There is no point in having material and sources that are not directly relevant to the subject in the infobox. I note your history of warnings for edit warring on various topics. Blanking your talk page may hide the warnings but they can still be found in the edit history.--Charles (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore I feel that comparing my opinion to Holocaust denial is a little strong.--Charles (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, point Charles - except I'm not the only editor who disagrees with you, either. Your argument about "consensus" is again a logical fallacy: first, because regarding this particular issue, there is in fact no "consensus," even when we include your allies with whom you've previously worked to create such an appearance. And second, because if you had been trained as an historian, you'd realize that interpretative consensus does not historical accuracy create (which was, of course, my point in raising the denier issue - you were not personally being compared to one, as I suspect you appreciate).

I tremble, tremble with fear, dear Charles, that you have "caught" me in an activity I knew very well the whole Wiki-world could see ... taking out the garbage. Yes indeed, I must confess - tendentiousness and the deletion of sourced, expert references that would restore balance are things that elsewhere on Wikipedia I have fought. If it meant, in those other instances, doing battle with proxies and sockpuppets to reverse white-washing, so be it. Since you're acquainting yourself with my activity, why don't you use your power of discernment to see which side you would have taken in my stead.

Finally, it must be said that your claims to "infobox relevence" are incorrect. Several battles in history were tactical victories for one side, and strategic victories for another - as Wikipedia itself acknowledges (see, for instance, [[1]] and [[2]]). Permit me to quote a relevant passage from [[3]] that speaks to this issue - and which you will recall having read, last time we dealt with this issue many, many months ago: "Let me address User:Charles['] repeated POV that the there could have been no strategic outcome for the Battle of Corunna, since the British intention before the battle was to withdraw from Spain and the French did not prevent that outcome. He claims a British tactical victory instead. Why? Because the French were chased off the field of battle before the British boarded their ships. However, it was the French intention that the British withdraw from Spain. The British did not simply walk out of the country: the French chased them out of Spain. It was the French, not the British, who held the field of battle. The British could have won 20 Corunnas, and each one would have been a French victory from a strategic point of view if the larger stategic goal - the expulsion of the British - would have been acheived."

The battle was fought between two evenly-sized armies. Had Soult met his Waterloo at Corunna, Moore would naturally have stayed and fought on in Spain. To suggest that the French did not win a strategic victory because the British "meant" to retreat from Spain, no matter what the French did, and therefore this cannot be considered a British defeat, is rather like saying that the British "meant" to "give" India back to the punjabs after World War Two, and therefore the British cannot be said to have "lost" their south Asian empire. Schpinbo (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This belongs on the article talkpage. Coming here to patronise and browbeat me for diagreeing with you has not in any way changed my informed opinion on the issue--Charles (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Chelmsford Cathedral

Hello Charles, re edit toay to Chelmsford Cathedral entry. The relevance of this is that the Cathedral effectively provides the majority of governors to the Cathedral School and the two are very closely linked. The Dean was Chairman of Governors throughout the episode described. The threat of a S15 warning notice for threat to pupil safety from child protection failings is unique in England and Wales. Although the Dean, the school, and the Cathedral has denied malpractice there is significant publicly disclosed material to support the allegations and the school's account- and the dean's- has been publicly contradicted by the press and the LEA in an Aug 2011 newsletter. Locally the behaviour of the Cathedral School is seen by many as a significant issue in relation to the Cathedral, particularly in the light of comments by the LEA and the Coroner. The Coroner's comments were seen as unusually forthright in respect of an historic event and were repeated in similiar terms three times during the inquest. This matter should be linked to the Cathedral if a fair account of its activities and conduct is to be given. Caesar OmagusCaesar Omagus (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Caesar. The cathedral is around a thousand years old I expect and a lot has happened in that time. Under the editing guidelines of due weight and recentism I do not think these problems in a school that is associated with but not part of the cathedral should be included. If you disagree the procedure is to start a section on the talk page of the catherdal article to propose its inclusion.--Charles (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)