User talk:Charles Dawson

Welcome!

Hello, Charles Dawson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Thomas Assheton Smith II

Charles Dawson (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Happy Birthday tune is virtually the same as that at the end of the first section of Robert Schumann's Humoresque, Opus 20, composed in 1839, so why all the fuss about copyright?

unblocked

Hi Charles, as discussed privately, I have unblocked you in order that you can work with user:billinghurst. Please work closely with him initially. If you are quoting passages from other works, do so sparingly, and always make sure it is clear that it is quoted. user:billinghurst can help you with formatting. Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Henry Cox

I have undone several of your recent edits as they completely borked the article. Not sure if this was deliberate or not, but please be more careful in future. – ukexpat (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to John Henry Cox, you will be blocked from editing. PLEASE STOP!!! ukexpat (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked your account for the moment. If you are unable to see how your recent edits were harmful rather than helpful, then you should not be editing Wikipedia. Your edits to John Henry Cox have included numerous formatting and referencing problems, and if allowed to stand, would have left this article an unreadable mess. In addition, this edit [1] simply removed the entire lead section. I will leave your mentor a message and ask them to discuss this matter with you. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest it by adding {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this notice. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you call the lead section I decided to remove because it comes naturally later in the narrative, i.e when Cox is 19 weeks into his long voyage. I am intrigued to know how someone else seems to be creating the chaos that seems to get attributed to me.

Have a look at this diff: [2]. You did that. and this: [3] and this:[4]. Each of these edits left the article a wreck. You should use the preview button to see in advance what your version of the page will look like. Failing that, if you save the page and it's all screwed up you should revert your edits until you can repair the damage. And it's not just what "I call a lead." See WP:LEAD. The lead section should summarize the important points of the article. Lastly, if you intended your last post to be an unblock request, you didn't do it right. You need to add the template without the "nowiki" tags around it, as it appears in the message itself, not in the edit window. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox, please note that this is what the article looked like before Charles started helping us. Also, lecturing him about how to use the {{unblock}} template correctly isnt helpful. Syntax is not Charles' strong point, as you have seen. He needs help with syntax, and he is getting better.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, you are allowed to make syntax mistakes, however if someone adds a warning on your talk page, you need to stop and wait until Billinghurst or myself have taken a look at the situation.

As Beeblebrox has said above, the first paragraph must stay where it is. You cant remove it. Every Wikipedia biography has a "lead" paragraph which is a quick overview of the persons life, and any important facts. We do this so that the reader can only read the first paragraph if they dont have time to read the entire article. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Napier (engineer)

I have reverted the edits you made to Robert Napier (engineer).

It is difficult to tell whether these were done in good faith or not, but they left the article in a complete mess, which is unacceptable.

I have noted the other comments on this page. I would suggest you start by making small edits to pages, making sure you do not upset the formatting, until you get the hang of things.

EdJogg (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lee, I don't think it was I who messed up your article, because I purposely undid all I had written as a preliminary stage, not being absolutely sure what to do and how to do it! My only aim is to improve the article. I prefer to do that in co-operation. Would you like to co-operate? Charles Dawson (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you approve the additions.

What the ***** ?????????

Hi Charles.

Can you explain what the <bleep> is going on with your edits? These three edits to Robert Napier (engineer) are fine and as would be expected from any sane editor. However, these three subsequent edits look like the work of a ~~madman~~ vandal. (I've reverted them as the page is screwed up.)

Are you sure that someone hasn't obtained your password and is performing malicious edits without you knowing? It might be worth changing your password to be certain (and keeping an eye for such in the future).

EdJogg (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lee, very strange. It seems to me that a saboteur can come in anywhere when I read some articles, full of indiscriminately inserted capitals. The same happens every time I open an article, so maybe I need to check as you suggest. (Charles Dawson)

I've been around WP long enough to spot two different editing styles (not that it's difficult here) but I've never seen anything quite like this. You do need to address the problem with some urgency, as editors do not appreciate having extra work made for them, however caused.

BTW 1 -- it's best to always sign your talk page correspondence with your username/date (type four tildes: ~~~~) even on your own talk page

BTW 2 -- my name's not Lee...

EdJogg (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about mistaking your identity. Charles Dawson (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Grand Canal (Ireland). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Proposed deletion of John George Aulsebrook Kitchen

The article John George Aulsebrook Kitchen has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Stickee (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with John George Aulsebrook Kitchen

Hello. Concerning your contribution, John George Aulsebrook Kitchen, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.scribd.com/doc/22985018/Kitchen-Rudders-Their-Inventor-and-Some-Applications. As a copyright violation, John George Aulsebrook Kitchen appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. John George Aulsebrook Kitchen has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:John George Aulsebrook Kitchen and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:John George Aulsebrook Kitchen with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:John George Aulsebrook Kitchen.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Dpmuk (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]