Misplaced Pages

• If you are here to respond to something I've posted on your talk page, feel free to reply there as I will have watchlisted your page.
  

• If you leave a message here on my talkpage I'll respond here unless you ask me to do something different. Thanks!

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bromley Bus Garage Amendments

Hi Charles, I had amended the Fleet List to list buses as I thought it would be of interest to others, and the citation is I work there, and drive these buses, I was going to add a section for past buses of the garage at a later date as well. And myself and others could add ones for Catford and Plumstead. Also I use this website http://freespace.virgin.net/ian.smith/buses/ for garage allocation details. 109.149.254.237 (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Andy

Misplaced Pages only uses material from reliable published sources. That does not include personal web pages.Charles (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Charles, As you had some issues with "Notforlackofeffort", I thought I should let you know there's now a thread at ANI - Misplaced Pages:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#User:Notforlackofeffort,
Since I've mentioned your name there I thought It was best I should let you know,
Cheers, –Davey2010 23:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that editor has dug themselves a deep enough hole to be melting into the Earth's core without need for me to add to a very long thread. If only some of this effort was put into improving Misplaced Pages. Have a happy new year.Charles (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree his efforts could go be better improved elsewhere but there ya go, Thanks and I wish you a very Happy New Year :), –Davey2010 16:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Please advise

You have warned a dynamic-IP editor about edit-warring. I fear that my attempts to discourage that editor's repeated editing on Vatican City (which I see as vandalism, because of insistently violating MOS:JOBTITLES) are opening me too to a charge of edit-warring. Esoglou (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

They have been warned. I have reverted again and given a final warning for disruptive editing.Charles (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

In spite of my invitation to IP 86... to discuss matters on my talk page, and in spite of your further warning, the editor has again reverted on Vatican City. I have made bold to again undo this. Esoglou (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I have put in a report at the edit warring noticeboard, which is a fair amount of work. What is it with some people that they cannot discuss a problem?Charles (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I should have done it myself, but imagined (I must have dreamt it) that some of the edits came from elsewhere within the IP 86... range and with slight geographical variations, making it more complicated to report. So I apologize. Esoglou (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Heart Kent

I do not have the skills to deal further with the addition of unsourced material about presenters. The IP editor or editors replaces material without a summary. I tried to explain in edit summaries and also on talk. Yours SovalValtos (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Urrh! The whole long article has only four cites and one of them is a dead link. Most of the linked presenter biographies seem to be as bad and there are higher standards for BLPs. What a pile of cruft. It is up to editors adding facts to provide reliable sources so you would be quite justified in just deleting all the unsourced parts and warning anyone who puts it back without sources.Charles (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I do not have the confidence or skills to deal with this sort of situation. In particular warning editors. The series of IPs seem to work in a remarkably similar way and do not use edit summary. Would you be prepared to do it please? SovalValtos (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppetry? Page protection may be needed. I am a bit knackered this evening but I will give it a go later.Charles (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. No hurry, this has been going on for a while. I did not want to be accused of an edit war.SovalValtos (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It is always easier with some support. I want to finally finish reading Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall too before it is dramatised on television.Charles (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The newest IP is doing the same at Heart (radio network), concentrating on the same un-notable.SovalValtos (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Adoption Request

Hi there - I am looking for an experienced user to 'adopt' me. I have been trying to edit some pages related to my community but despite my best efforts to keep both sides of view within the article it seems certain people are intent on keeping it slanted to their own view. I would like some help on citations, vandalism and editing protected and semi-protected pages. Hope you can help me out. Noughtnotout (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I will be pleased to help. You seem to be doing well enough for a beginner. Just be sure to have reliable published sources for any new material. Your copy editing looks useful. Good luck.Charles (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Bo-Xilai and Chongqing page

Hi Charles,

Thanks for the advice. We will not add any reference link to the said pages then.

How can we remove out-dated links on the Chongqing page? The two scmp.com links at the reference section already out-dated. please remove.

SCMP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.22.240.65 (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

A-hole

What is the justification for removing the links to two New Yorker cartoons I added to a-hole? The New Yorker is a culturally important publication and its use of the word in its iconic cartoons helped signify that the word had gone from one that was completely taboo to one that was usable in ordinary conversation. Bellczar (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:EL prohibits embedded links in the text. Whether the link is worth including in the external links section is open to discussion.Charles (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That is not what WP:EL says. It says, "they should not normally be placed in the body of an article." That is not the same as prohibiting them. It also says the policy does not apply to citations. I don't think your understanding of the policy is adequate for you to be instructing me. Bellczar (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It is an external link not a citation. If you want to go against the norm take it to the article talk page.Charles (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Dubai article

Hi. Thanks for your revert on the Dubai article. I must have made the same reversion four or five times - every couple of days the guy swings by and makes the change. It's getting very wearying... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

If it happens again I will get after them for edit warring. Cheers.Charles (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Spanish Armada revisions

I noticed that you reverted the added aftermath context that I added & a more neutral casualty number. Could you give me a reason for this revision? Thanks. Jldg89 (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight and written in editorial style. The article is about the Armada not the strategic situation in western Europe.Charles (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes sure but the edit pertains to the aftermath so it is relevant to the strategic situation in western Europe. If the editorial style is not appropriate, you are free to edit its content and tone, deleting it (since it contains relevant information) is not the way to go in my opinion. Improve it instead of deleting it. If you don't feel like it I am willing to listen to what you think is not appropriate and make the proper corrections. Jldg89 (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Checking an article

Hey hey Charles! Do you want to have my article to check? Your adoptee :P --Sterndmitri (talk) 11:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I assume you mean in your sandbox. I am very busy but will try to read through it.Charles (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, i mean that one. I would be nice if you will try. Nevertheless, my question above was rather a suggestion, so I hope it would be convenient for you if you will decide to; this is not something urgent you know. Thank you very much, take care! --Sterndmitri (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Royal Marines

Military articles are allowed to have the flag in the infobox. Flags are allowed when they represent the nation. Read MOS:ICON. Here is a list of military article with flags in the infobox.

• Royal Thai Marine Corps
• United States Marine Corps
• Republic of Korea Marine Corps
• Spanish Navy Marines
• Mexican Navy
• Russian Navy
• French Navy
• Portuguese Navy
• Italian Navy
• Argentine Marines
• Republic of China Navy

- GoldenBoy25 (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Strange. I thought I had replied to this bit of nonsense days ago. There is nothing in MOS:ICON to support your claim. Quite the reverse. It specifically says flag icons should only be used in infoboxes if they add information that is not already in the text. There are no special rules for military related pages. The misuse of icons in other articles is no excuse for doing more of it.Charles (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Gallipoli

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gallipoli_Campaign&oldid=prev&diff=648912759 - with this revert, you made the comment: "Image size should not be specified." Really? Why? Is the a wiki-rule on that you can quote? Actually, don't bother... the image needs to be resized. Obviously you're new here, and didn't realize that when you make an edit, even a revert, you are responsible for ensuring that the article has been improved, and more importantly, not made worse. When you make blind reverts, like you did here, because you're in such a rush to show your wiki-superiority, you end up making mistakes - mistakes that others have to both fix (again) and explain to you. I'm going to revert it back. If you get the revert itch again, look at the before and after effects of the edit, and stop wasting people's time. - WOLFchild 09:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)