User talk:Acabashi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

(From North Alabama 000) Appeal for second look at cites you had removed on 14th May[edit]

Hello Mr.Acabashi --
[_] First things first: i think Wikipedia is wonderful, and a quick glance at all your contributions makes it quite clear you are responsible for a significant part of Wikipedia's "wonderful-ness" so thank you for your efforts !!
[_] Compared to that topic above, the remainder below is trivial, but...
Regarding the article -->
[_] Your conscientious revision as of 01:09, 14 May 2014 did remove four citations from this article-text sentence:
"He portrays Mr·Val Pearson in several episodes of 2014 BBC Three 'Uncle' series one."
The reasoning for this removal was apparently "Rm cites not mentioning O'Neill"
[_] What's new: Three of those removed links do appear to both (1) mention Mr.O'Neill (down in the "credits" listing) and also (2) substantiate that article-text sentence.
Prior to their removal by you, those three links were labeled as:
[_] And so within this here note, i am struggling to find appropriate words that might somehow cause you to reconsider having deleted the above three links, and then later having tacked "citation needed" onto that same article-text sentence.
[_] I am sorry if i reported above the finer details (of your edit's chronology) a little bit scrambled.
Somewhat related, subsequent to your edits i inserted a substitution into that article, for the obsolete previous "Hamilton Hodell" link (which you had correctly removed 00:48, 14 May)
[_] Ordinarily i log into Wikipedia as "North Alabama 000" however my password is out of my reach at the moment.
If you like you can ignore this message pending me logging in and sign it correctly.
Finally i grieve that my words above might seem to suggest (incorrectly) that i know what i'm talking about, because actually that is not the case.
Please feel free to delete this message... you're the expert not me. (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to acknowledge that the words above are mine. Am sorry about the confusion factor i had created North Alabama 000 (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I will look again at the article, and all you mention above, a little later when I'm not pushed for the time it deserves. Acabashi (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate how you are so conscientious. But far more importantly... i sincerely appreciate your huge efforts toward Wikipedia viewed as a whole North Alabama 000 (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello again !! I hope to not be regarded as impatient (nor as some sort of a know-it-all) but i have restored the three links mentioned above at line-item "What's new"... owing to the five month passage of time. I have confirmed that those 3 cited URLs still do in fact mention Mr.O'Neill. But most of all, these my latest unilateral edits are offered with best of intentions, fully in the spirit of pace which is Latin bookworm-speak for "with All Respect due" North Alabama 000 (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for getting back and apologies for not looking at this sooner. Your BBC links show O'Neil, so are fine I think. You don't have to wikilink 'BBC Online' three times - just do the first instance. I noticed you appeared to try a YouTube link - normally these would be frowned on as WP is always worried about copyvio, but if the YouTube channel is the official BBC channel, this shouldn't cause too many probs from my point of view - but I would add it to the External links.
Ref 2, the Larry Oliver's Past Winners, seems to be 404 at my end so will need to be looked at. Refs 7 & 8 now seem to be erroneous and would need repointing. Be nice to get a ref for the Joe Meek Story - I know he was in it, and was bloody marvelous. Be careful with the Internet Movie Database - it's seen as not totally reliable as anyone can add stuff there - better links are best to be found.Acabashi (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for having shown such patience with me the pure-amateur neophyte. I did fix the 'Refs 7 & 8' woe you picked up on... thanks for having spotted that. I hope to follow up soon on your other valuable comments. As a WP reader i have been blessed endlessly by it's existence, and am sure i speak for many when saying that... i sincerely appreciate all the effort that you put into it North Alabama 000 (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Acabashi. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 19:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks - will make good use of it. Acabashi (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)



Im sorry you find our addition to be disruptive but everything we have written on the Muir-Hill wiki page is in fact encyclopedic. As the propiertors of the Muir-Hill name and rights to the business what we have written is true it is not promotional just facts. Im not sure why you find this to be spam. We could have removed other certain information but chose to just correct a few untrue parts. Thanks Muirhill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muirhill (talkcontribs) 12:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back. As I suspected, your WP account has been set up specifically to add to the Muir-Hill article, showing Conflict of Interest (WP:CONFLICT), and a seeming intention to edit from a point of view that is not neutral (WP:POV). Please read the guidelines on promotion (WP:NOTPROMOTION), and then refer to text you have re-added to the article for example: "Genuine spare parts are readily available together with repairs, sales & services being carried out by Lloyd Loaders (MH) Ltd." / "Enthusiasts are always keen to secure genuine spare parts, creating a growing customer base for Lloyd Loaders (MH) Ltd." This is blatant promotion of your company.
Also please read the WP article on notability for people (WP:BIO), which applies not just to subjects of articles, but those mentioned within them - please then refer to the "Ross-on Wye based Robert Jenkins" para of your previous re-addition. If Jenkins is worth a mention, then he is worthy of a WP article - I suspect he is not. In this para you state: "His extensive practical knowledge, and vast collection of parts information has been passed on unofficially to North Wales company (and avid Muir-Hill enthusiasts) Smallholder Services. Who now supply parts, and offer service information across the world." - again blatant promotion for another company, and not only that, promotion of a non-notable organization - see WP:COMPANY which again applies not only to subjects of article, but those mentioned within them.
Your IP address (I assume it's yours) unexplained reversion of properly Wikipedia formatted book references is unwarranted, as is the removal of requests for citations to reliable independent (of Muir Hill and Lloyd Loaders) reference sources to prove what you have written. The right response is to find references - the wrong response is to remove the request. I could not find any good independent references, and I always try.
I know that not all the promotion in the article dating back to 2009 originated from the account you are using, but much of it does. I hope you find the information and links useful. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I think you might have it all a bit wrong, the parts you have quoted above were all written in 2009 and we have never been told that it wasnt allowed before you. All I did was change a few slight words. I did not write the R Jenkins bit at all just changed a few words due to the fact that it was not factually correct. What is written is not self promotion as we have no need for that as we own everything to do with Muir-Hill, that in my eyes ia a fact. Not sure why you have now chosen to remove information that has been on for 5 years?
I am also not sure what you mean by removing of book references and requests being removed as I do not believe I have done any of these things. Muirhill (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Muirhill
Thanks for getting back again. You are certainly right about the length of time stuff can last on Wikipedia, particularly in an article that has had relatively very few views and edits since inception. Just because suspect information has been on a page for a long time doesn't give it some kind of authority. I did say that not all promotion was initiated by the user name you currently use, but your additions layered promo on promo, and you were the obvious person to contact as your June 2014 edits were the only ones added in over a year, apart from a picture, and you have been the most prolific editor since the article's creation, and your user name shows clear conflict of interest. I recommend again that you look through the links above for advice, and reflect on your user name per WP:SPAMNAME.
As for the book references, your 27 June 2014 Muirhill user edits came hot on the heals (17 minutes) of the IP address reversion of my removal of promotion, and restructuring of book references to acceptable Wikipedia style. It is understandable then to presume both user name and IP address are connected. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

South Cave[edit]

Hi, I am new to wikipedia and although I may not be totally understanding of how to use Wikipedia, I am aware of the citations I made in the editing of South Cave and Haltemprice and Howden. The constitution of Haltemprice and Howden was placed as the 10th most affluent in the country in 2003 according to a study from Barclays. This can be seen on the Haltemprice and Howden wikipedia page. Hence, the claim is not incorrect and it was not justified to remove it. As a new user, I am unsure of how to publish this citation on South Cave's wikipedia page, but as it is evidently true information I would appreciate your help as an experienced user in adding the correct citation to the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesley175 (talkcontribs) 13:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks you for getting back. No, I was right to remove it as a citation was not added for proof. You can add back text if you like, copying the BBC citation on the Haltemprice and Howden page, but be careful, you can mention Haltemprice and Howden as an area, but do not conflate this with any villages as none such are mentioned in the BBC reference, and might not be part of that general affluence. As the study uses modified statistics, these taking into account disposable income after cost of living has been evaluated, it would be wise to add a short adjustment to the text to include this. Have a go at adding the cite and text and I'll have a look and give help if needed. Give the 2003 date in your text as things may be different now. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I apologise for removing your details on yokefleet it was unintentional and since making an account I've realised wiki isn't for me. I've been trying to find a way of deleting my account but haven't yet been successful.. Sorry to have caused any issues — Preceding unsigned comment added by Han67 (talkcontribs) 18:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

We all have to start somewhere, and we all make mistakes at the start (I certainly made mistakes and am still learning to avoid them), which doesn't mean that we have to give up. However if the Han67 user name is a sockpuppet (WP:SOCKS) of Lesley175, I am not at all saying that it is, it makes it a bit more tricky for both accounts, but not impossible. If you reconsider your decision I would be quite willing to help you with editing and Wikipedia protocol. You will not be able to delete your account or any other you might have created. Acabashi (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet, I simply made a mistake in editing the page. As a new user I need to learn and adjust to wiki and I want to have some practice using sandboxes as you suggested. I've apologised for the mistake I made in deleting part of an article, and as I can't seem to delete my account I'll give it a few days to try and get used to it, or I will log out and not use the account again - as I already feel wiki isn't for me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Han67 (talkcontribs) 22:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back. I didn't say you were a sockpuppet, it was only postulated given the close-time edits to those of mine and Lesley175 on Yokefleet. You will not be able to delete the Han67 account, and it will be inextricably evidenced to any other accounts that are already, or will be, under the same IP address, edit behaviour and locality. So, if you wanted to further edit Wikipedia it would be best to keep Han67, as any other account you add with the same IP might prove tricky. Cheers, Acabashi (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi, as you have been adding a portal link to articles - I was toying with the idea of using the {{portalbar}} template with links to local, England and UK portals. What do you think? I have just moved the bar on Roos above the templates as probably better than below where I had it before. Keith D (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of asking you if adding portals and nav temps to articles is reasonable and acceptably common - I quite like them - makes the article look more important. Your portal bar looks neat, I'll give it a try. I notice that East Yorks seems to come under the 'East Yorks' and 'Yorks and the Humber' temps - do you think it reasonable to add both to appropriate place articles ? I've also been liberally adding 'Use Brit Eng' temps at the tops, I must admit mainly to forestall the add of the 'EngvarB', which to the less experienced entering the edit window would be not particularly easy to fathom. Acabashi (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The script appears to be switching the British English template to the unfathomable EngvarB but I keep switching it back as it is much clearer and more specific. East Yorks is presumably the same as North Lincs coming under both Lincolnshire and Yorkshire & the Humber. The {{Yorkshire and the Humber}} template does not really add much to the place articles so I would probably forget it. Keith D (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Advice taken. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


I made updates to Cathedral Prep page to reflect correct information - why did you delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not revert your edit but that by Cathedral Prep. I presume you might be the same entity. The reason for the reversion is that we don't add prenominals into infoboxes. If you would like any help in editing Wikipedia, I am willing to oblige. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Addition of information to the Wentbridge page[edit]

To whom it may concern,

I am puzzled by your correspondences. I have given a full citation to a published academic work, La' Chance, Scott A. 'The Origins and Development of the Legend of Robin Hood' (Leeds: The University of Leeds Research Administration Department, 2014). In consequence, the work to which I am making reference can hardly be considered to be unpublished. Indeed, the citation details are far more complete than the current references that are listed on the Wikipedia Wentbridge page, for example, by looking at that page, can you give me citation details for Robin Hood and the Potter, which university is the manuscript held at, and in particular, which verse in the manuscript reads "Y mete hem bot at Went breg,' syde Lyttyl John"? And, how do you know that the village of Wentbridge is so named because it used to be the site of the Great North Road's bridge to over the River Went? Or that entrance to the village was down a steep valley which would have been a problem before motorised transport and eventually became a bottleneck? Alternatively, what is your citation for the governance of Wentbridge, or the geography of Wentbridge? These details are not listed, and so you are failing to monitor the publication of unpublished material, which you state is your aim. So if you are going so picky, why don't you start with the information that has no footnote? Heck, you have not even cited which referencing style to use, should it be MHRA or Harvard or APA style etc etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siggasonswein (talkcontribs) 22:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Just because there are other inadequacies in articles doesn't give you carte blanche to add such further. Your vast swathe of text was riddled with conversation style, weasels, and original research—ie interpretation of a supposed source—that is not conducive to an encyclopedia. If you have a problem with the reversions of your personal research by the number of other editors who have done so, you can ask for help and consensus on the various Project talk pages that can be navigated to through each article's Talk page. In the meantime I suggest you do not continue to copy and paste not-properly-cited and non-neutral original research text over series of articles. Acabashi (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I also note that you are adding your own research—your user name you admit is a pseudonym of, and is the author La' Chance—in often hyperbolic and self-aggrandizing fashion. This is a clear case of Conflict of interest and Original Research. Acabashi (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

uploading a photo file on to page "Robert Shaw poet and pioneer of poetry&jazz[edit]

I went through the stages includng permissions on Commons Wizrd to upload a photo of the subject. It failed but each time I try again I am informed that the file already exists and i can be removed only temporarily. Subsequent efforts to upload fail and get the same message.Do you think the existing version of the file is a bar? How do I get rid of it. It failed to upload initially. Any suggestions welcomed. S2308rasc (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Moved comment added to top of page by User talk:Eagleman987[edit]

Hello Acabashki, I would like to mention about the edit you did to the Spalding Grammar School page on wiki the other day, I just messed around with it to have a laugh... Yours Sincerely eagleman987

Drawing of Kim Jong-un[edit]

Do you draw well? If so, we could really use your skills. Please see this. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Might be able to help but very busy with two professional projects at the moment. I will be freer in the New Year - make contact again then if you haven't found anyone. Looking at the idea, I think the image will have to be an original artwork free interpretation based on a number of images, and not heavily reliant on any particular image, to avoid copyvio. A slight caricature would also help avoid copyvio problems. Acabashi (talk) 08:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Good thinking. You are wonderful. If you can do it, great, and if not, that is okay too. If you do, please check the article beforehand just in case a drawing has already been made. Many thanks for the reply and your input. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: "unconstructive" edit[edit]

In reference to this, you might notice that the edit comment of the edit you reverted identifies it as a merge. A merge is not an "unconstructive" edit, especially not in this particular case.

Please take care with automated tools. They can themselves be non-constructive when used without care. Thank you. -- (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If you are going to merge something make sure you make it in plain speak in the edit summary with reference to a consensus on Talk pages. I see no 'recent' post 2009 merge acceptance on Talk:Bardiya. What you left (unmerged?) was a structural mess, so you can't expect editors to leave pages in that state, especially when left by an IP address with only 2 edits. Please don't leave others to wipe up. Thank you. Acabashi (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I realize that you're peeved for having been shown to have made a mistake, but its not worth the air you're puffing into it. Its not a big deal. Mistakes happen. Just duck and carry on. Just don't be an ass about it.
But to address your points:
1) the words "fold ... into x" are plain-speak.
2a) It would seem that something on the talk page caught your attention and you assume that that has something to do with my edits. Rest assured, they do not. My edits have nothing to do with the talk page, and so don't need to refer to it either (and even if they did, they still would not have to refer to it).
2b) Yes, I actually did read the talk page, and yes I did take it into account. But as I said, my edits have nothing to do with the talk page.
3) As for leaving others to wipe up: As far as I see it, there is no structural mess and there is nothing to wipe up. But then again, perhaps you see something that I don't, in which case I'd appreciate a concrete pointer or two.
Again: there is no excuse for a tool-driven revert that hasn't been carefully considered. And your revert was not carefully considered. But its not the end of the world. Relax, don't sweat the small stuff! :-) -- (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi again. Thanks for getting back with explanation. I was assuming that a major removal of 700 well-written words and 26 refs - wherever these ended up - would require some discussion and a consensus. It seems not :) Thanks for being reasonable, not that common with 2-edit IP addresses I can tell you. Acabashi (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello again. :) Just some background info (in case you're interested in this arcane subject)...
On the talk page there is a section titled "These should technically be two articles" (17 January 2009!). The editor there was right. So, as you see, (long ago) someone had realized that disparate figures were being mashed together. Unfortunately, noone had acted on that comment, and so as more and more "details" and sections were added, the whole thing just got more confusing. One can see that in the very last comment on the take page, which asks: "As we now have a clear decision to refer to this person as Bardiya can the article be edited to reflect this?"
The fundamental problem lies in someone having taken different stories (with several different names for the main figures) and trying to cobble a biography out of those disparate stories. It doesn't work. Its like someone taking Dracula out of Bram Stokers' (and other) books and trying to make a biography of him.
Compounding the problem was that another editor (or editors) "creatively" interpreted sources to use one name where the sources had another.
As for references: its easy to detect that the majority of the references were utter crud.
a) primary sources being directly cited with ''<ref>'' is an absolute no-no, and a big red flag. The maxim is always "who said it", so its the translation/interpretation that ought to be cited. Eleven of the "citations" are of this type. Translation is always also interpretation. Old sources are especially problematic sources, and familiarity with the academic literature on them is *crucial*. This is true in academia, and even more true on WP (in which case, per WP:RS, the academic literature, and not the primary source ought to be cited anyway). An example of things that go wrong is point 'd' below.
b) massive abuse of sources, for example:
b1) false claims through example like "but recent histories tend to call him Bardiya.[9][10]" It is not legitimate to draw a statistical conclusion unless the source does. And, (not valid on WP anyway) a statistical conclusion cannot be made from just two examples.
b2) attributing one's own factoids to a source though they are not actually in the source: [1][4][2b]
b3) false citation: "Xenophon, takes the name from Ctesias,[6]" citing the primary (!) source, who not only doesn't say he took the name from Ctesias, but actually tells us that he was himself at the court.
b4) novel interpretations of geography and using names and terminology that do not appear in the (primary!) source: "According to Ctesias, on his deathbed Cyrus appointed Bardiya as satrap (governor) of some of the far-eastern provinces.[11]"
b5) "creative" interpretation: "Darius often accused rebels and opponents of being impostors ... and it could be straining credulity to say that they all were" (citing Darius himself [18], but in which neither "often", nor "it could be straining credulity to say that they all were" appear, nor could even be adduced).
b) four commentaries on the Bible (!), of which three are about two hundred years old (!) and none of which is an academically vetted source.
c) academic conclusions and "biographical" details being attributed ([15a][15b]) to a popular novel (!), that, though it has historical figures in it, is a work of fiction.
d) an extract from a primary source with no knowlege that academic soures identify the primary sources as having made a mistake ([24][25]).
As you see, quantity is not a mark of quality (not even for so-called "good articles", see the references section in that link :), and if the premise is wrong (i.e. munging two figures into one), no amount of words or "citations" can make it better.
-- (talk) 10:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Why did you remove fees from st peters school, York?[edit]

Hi Ferrariboy20. Re your adds to St Peter's School, York (24 November 2014), ie

  • "As of 2014/15, St Peter's School charges £26,310 (about €33,000 or $42,000) per year for boarding pupils, and £15,930 (about €20,000 or $25,000) per year for day pupils. These fees are without extra-fees such as uniform, etc."

Please see Schools guidelines, particularly regarding Avoiding advertising. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Haxey Hood[edit]

Advertising commercial business? Really? The Haxey Hood is little known by outsiders, and there are very few points of contact to find out about an event that has occurred for _700_ years. The place was an island in a land of marsh about 400 of those years. Originally these little hamlet public houses were required to be formed by local government. No one gets rich owning one. (Owning many, maybe.) The pubs are the gathering places for recruiting the teams, for planning strategy and tactics, and for celebrating being on the Isle of Axholme. Get off your high horse and put the two links back that you deleted. Do everyone a favor and add links for the other two pubs if you can find them. (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Per Westwoodside, Haxey Hood, and East Lound (27 November 2014}. Regardless of how you feel towards the Hood event (which, by the way, I have visited on three occasions), there is no excuse for adding text to an encyclopedia that is unreferenced apparent personal opinion (see again WP:VERIFICATION), or to add links to pub web pages that blatantly promote the business, (see Wikipedia:Spam]. It is of no concern if or not you (or I), feel that the Haxey Hood is "little known" or has "very few points of contact" - the object of the Wikipedia project is to produce a neutral encyclopedia, not promotion on things that are felt need an extra push, and this overrides any content in any article regardless of our personal views. From your comments above it appears that you might have a conflict of interest regarding the area and the Hood - please see WP:CONFLICT and WP:NPOV. Your comments "Get off your high horse" and "Do everyone a favor" appear abusive - see WP:PERSONAL and its consequences. Please keep your comments neutral and article specific, not personal. Thank you. Acabashi (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I assume you also agree with the Terms of Use for Wikipedia. Your point of view is incorrect. I have not added personal opinion. For some reason, your opinion appears to be that adding links to the organizations supporting the event is improper. You wrote that you have been there three times; find a way to add more depth to the article. Be the eyes and ears for millions of people who lack access. I hope we agree that an encyclopedia has many purposes, and that it primarily is for basic knowledge and further research on a subject. You seem ignorant about what constitutes legitimate articles about commercial entities, yet we agree on many levels. I assume the pub websites should be linked because their websites add veracity to the unique claims in article. Each site has photographic proof of a destination building and a current telephone number, which researchers could use to gain further details.The pubs are the major factor in continuing the tradition. Explain in detail why one link to an obviously not marketing-savvy pub and a second pub that has been critical in supporting an ancient event for over 285 years should not be linked. The current article does not cite enough references nor have enough links to be considered of even middling quality. Try to improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Assessment of Edmund Turnor[edit]

Hi, I've commented over at WP:Lincs, and have assessed the article in question. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC).

Churches - 'former denomination' of pre-Reformation churches/cathedrals in England and Wales[edit]

Dear Acabashi, Thank you very much indeed for getting in touch. I genuinely appreciate what you are saying but the issue of 'Former denomination - Roman Catholic' is a simple matter of historical fact that accurately and truthfully reflects the most profound changes to the religious structures (in every sense) that have ever taken place in Britain - ie The Reformation. I had noticed however, that on many entries for pre-Reformation churches and cathedrals, this period - and the consequent changes to the denomination of the church/cathedral building had been almost entirely overlooked. I think stating the historical fact of the building's pre-Reformation denomination in the 'summary' section of each entry is an entirely reasonable and succinct way to address this. I hope you will understand and appreciate that the edits I have made have been done entirely, for want of a better phrase, in good faith. I should also perhaps point out that my edits are very much in the spirit of user NickGeorge1993 who, as you will see if you look at his/her contributions, has added a 'former denomination - Roman Catholic' to several pre-Reformation church/cathedral entries. I also noted that his/her similar/identical edits were not challenged by anybody so I must confess to being a little surprised by your query.

I also did not really understand your statement that "A change in church denomination to Anglican mostly took place in the 16th century, so it hardly seems relevant". Surely this fact, which may well be unknown to a great many people - not just visitors to the England and Wales but many of its own citizens as well - was hugely relevant in the past, is now and will remain so in perpetuity? I am happy to continue adding this edit to all the churches for whom it applies but welcome any suggestions on how it may be improved or better phrased. For example, one editor has changed one of my edits from 'Roman Catholic' to 'Catholic' on the basis that the term 'Roman Catholic' did not exist before the Reformation, while the term 'Catholic' clearly did. Personally I take the view that 'Roman Catholic' should remain on the same basis that we use the term BC - a term that in all probability did not exist before the birth of Christ but which is now accepted and used because it provides clarity, definition and context. I am more than happy to be persuaded otherwise. Equally, I thought (and indeed as one other editor has done) it would make things even clearer, from a historical perspective, to extend the edit to say 'Former denomination - Roman Catholic, until the Reformation' and create a link to The Reformation entry so readers can find out more. Yours and others' thoughts will be gratefully received. God bless you. SirThomasMoreLikeIt (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Additional note : Dear Acabashi, if it helps (I am unfamiliar with the technical aspects of Wikipedia, so please forgive me if this is unnecessary information), when I referred to edits made by user NickGeorge1993 above, I should perhaps have given some precise examples - these can be found at Canterbury, Wells and Durham Cathedrals (amongst others) and these particular edits were all made on 16 October 2013. God bless you. SirThomasMoreLikeIt (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi, Thanks for removing the Trivia section header. I use that header to move stuff into prior to removal, but I forgot to remove it when reorganising the page to get rid of the promotional stuff that you, Material Scientist and I had previously removed, along with some new stuff. I reported him on WP:RVAN, but Material Scientist wants him to have a final warning before blocking. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

No probs. I saw your report on the errant editor. I think he's perhaps overenthusiastic, assumes ownership of Holmfirth, and doesn't know how WP operates... no excuse if he just carries on though. Acabashi (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


With all due respect, the link was not "spam" as you termed it. It is, in fact, the link to the official website for Helmsley. Do you have a problem with this? Again, with all due respect, what is your position of "knowledge" on Helmsley that allows you to term it as "spam"? (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

My "position of knowledge on Helmsley" is low, but my 'position of knowledge on WP is reasonably high', and I know blatant spam when I see it, although you may have added such in good faith. The External link you added was to a commercial listing site, [here], promoting businesses and advertising services, and linking to YouTube and Twitter which should not be linked through. As per my edit summary, please review the subject here: WP:LINKSTOAVOID, and these will help you too: WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and WP:LINKSPAM. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in[edit]

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors April 2015 Newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

March drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

April blitz: The one-week April blitz, again targeting our long requests list, will run from April 19–25. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the requests page. Sign up here!

May drive: The month-long May backlog-reduction drive, with extra credit for articles tagged in December 2013, January and February 2014 and all request articles, begins soon. Sign up now!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Cottingham Springboard Music Festival[edit]

Hi Acbashi, thanks very much for assisting by editing content deemed inappropriate from the Cottingham Springboard page. For future ref could you let me know which element you removed so that I don't inadvertently cite it again in the future? "Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted." - sure, I'd never knowingly do this, and didn't think I had. There are various private companies, public sector organisations and funders contributing to the festival and I'd not normally have included reference to anyone outwith direct factual context. Many thanks for your time :-) Wetwang Slack (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - May 2015[edit]

Delivered May 2015 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

20:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)