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 --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Con_O%27Neill_(actor)
[_] 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:
"BBCUnc_Sr1Ep1"
"BBCUnc_Sr1Ep3"
"BBCUnc_Sr1Ep5"
[_] 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. 66.55.134.199 (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)

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. -- 95.116.191.242 (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! :-) -- 95.116.191.242 (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.
-- 95.116.184.235 (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.24.11.170.191 (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 24.11.170.191 (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)

Holmfirth[edit]

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)

Helmsley[edit]

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"?86.177.64.25 (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)

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services


Sign up now


Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - August 2015[edit]

Delivered August 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.

22:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

GOCE August 2015 newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors August 2015 Newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

July drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 24 people who signed up, 17 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

August blitz: The one-week April blitz, targeting biographical articles that have been tagged for copy editing for over a year, will run from August 16–22. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the article list on the blitz page. Sign up here!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis, and Pax85.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
sent by Jonesey95 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)