User talk:AJHingston

Welcome
Hello, AJHingston, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Baedeker Blitz
I am reverting your edit to the Baedeker Blitz on 25 April 2008. Because although I can appreciated your comment "The raids: Date of York raid corrected to 29 April 1942 (from 28 April). The raid began shortly after 02.00 on 29 April (ie night of 28/29 April)", the current date is sourced to a reliable source. If we are going to put in another date then it must have a reliable source as a citation to support the change (See WP:BURDEN). Also if the raid was as you say on the night of 28/29 we would be better putting it in in that format. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw your comments
at Caryatid and am very intersted to see what edits you make to the article. Also if you put something, anything, on your used page then your name will appear in blue rahter than red, which is (opinion) a good thing. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The 1860s tie is, I believe, related to the Second Empire style of architecture which developed in France around that time (1860s).  I am pretty good with American architecture, our best examples start with the Philadelphia City Hall and continue up to perhaps the  First World War.  I believe that a serious look at Baroque Architecture would produce a crop of them a century before then.  However I will take a look at the article and see if I can flesh it out a bit.  God willing and the creek don't rise.  Carptrash (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Fr. John Berchmans Puthuparambil OFM CAP
Your edit here added an unexplained number to the AfD discussion. I removed it as it did not contribute to the discussion. A typo, perhaps? &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Types of Christianity
Even if my article gets deleted because of you, I can still objectively admire your intelligence and your insights. It appears you truly care about quality on Wikipedia, and that's admirable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yessy543 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Laundry assumptions
It's commonly accepted that appliances like the washer and dryer did not free women to work outside the home. Far from it: labour-saving devices actually freed the family from having to hire a laundry service and a maid/charlady, which in turn actually increased the amount of housework the average housewife had to do, since she suddenly had to do it all herself. The machines certainly saved poorer women labour, but it didn't "free them to work": all poor women already worked (often at home, doing piecemeal work) on top of doing all the housework. Luckily for them there wasn't much housework for them to do, since most poor people only had one extra change of clothing. --NellieBly (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Old Palace, York
Yeah, good points you made about the name at the AfD - just wanted to say thanks for pointing that out as I wasn't entirely aware of that. I'm entirely happy for someone local to come up with a sensible name for the place, but it certainly makes sense to have the Library article developed somewhere, perhaps at this page for now. Cheers. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

John A. Wise
Re your comments on this AfD, pretty much the exact same material has been coatracked in to the Juice Plus article. I've raised it on the BLP noticeboard and your input would be appreciated.--Icerat (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems as though someone needs to read up on canvassing, inappropriate notification, and vote stacking.

Articles for deletion/Waveney Campus University
Hi. I've replied to your comments on the AfD - essentially UCS is already covered by another article (dreadful copyvio that it is). This article is really just an erroneously created article or a hoax designed to game the system - which is actually probably the intent imo. Take a look and see what you think. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Keith Buckner
Care to weigh in on this one? James470 (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

York meetup
Hi. I was there but didn't make contact with anyone and no-one made contact with me. See my remarks at User_talk:Tagishsimon. On a more productive note I'd be interested to discuss priorities for York articles - I saw your contributions on the Minster Library AfD recently. Best. --GuillaumeTell 21:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Wendi Deng Murdoch
Hello AJ, thanks so much for putting the move notice up on the WDM talk page. I'd forgotten to go back and do that when I posted the move notice on the article page. I put in my support. That makes three yays, one nay, so far.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi AJ, glad it all worked out so well. Have a nice day.  Malke 2010 (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Auto-correcting script?
It seems you have something that auto-'corrects' things, when you edit a page, including a talk page; see re. my sig. Please take care about that, as some might object to such a correction. It doesn't bother me, really, but...other 'corrections' might cause trouble. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 09:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

MURDOCH
See Talk:Wendi_Deng_Murdoch. Spelling Style (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Re:Verification
Hi, thanks for the comments about verification. I've added a couple of paragraphs to the piece giving some background detail. Cheers. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Holloway Brothers (London)
Hi - I note that you added some really excellent material to the article on Holloway Brothers (London) earlier last year. Is there any chance that you could spend a bit of time referencing the material to the relevent pages in Rolt? I do not have a copy of Rolt and it would be good to bring the article up to the same standard as articles such as that on Tarmac. I would do it myself but I do not have a copy of Rolt. Best wishes and happy editing. Dormskirk (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Your comment on BLP talk
Regarding RS publishing false information, that has recently inspired me to start an essay which is currently at User:Gigs/Truth matters. It's just a skeleton right now but feel free to expand it if you'd like, I intend to move it into main project space once its more fleshed out. It's not intended to propose a main inclusion standard other than verifiability, but only to remind people that verifiability isn't everything, and to examine the harm that blind application of verifiability can cause. Gigs (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Countries that Britain has attacked
I am an avid reader of Wikipedia as is my family. When one of my children asked me what countries had Britain attacked I said let's look it up on Wikipedia. However, although there were lists of wars. raids, declarations of war, invasions, colonial campaigns, sea borne attacks and occupations there was not a list by country. Of course, if a list is purporting to contain all the adventures over, say, the last two thousand years, then we come up against the difficulty of deciding where's where. For example, The people of these islands have fought in what is now Belgium for centuries - the approximate area of present day Belgium has been many different countries: the Roman province of Belgica; a domain of the Frankish nation; Flanders, Limburg and Brabant etc; Burgundian Netherlands; Hapsburg Netherlands; Spanish Netherlands; Austrian Netherlands; United States of Belgium; a province of France, part of the Netherlands, Belgium; occupied by Germany; Belgium again; occupied by Germany again and finally present day Belgium. I agree that Britain has never attacked or occupied present day Belgium but would it make sense to differentiate the historical political entities that have been on the same spot?

Ask anyone where the battle of Waterloo occurred and they would say Belgium (if they knew, of course) but Waterloo pre-dates the Kingdom of Belgium (founded 1830). In Wikipedia the answer is given as "... allied forces decisively defeated him in Belgium at the Battle of Waterloo, just south of Brussels." They might say "in what is now Belgium" but that happens rarely. Indeed it would be difficult to know in what country Waterloo was at the time. The Treaty of Chaumont (1 March 1814) was rejected by the French, the Treaty of Paris (30 May 1814) placed France out of Belgium with the Austrians satisfied that Belgium would no longer be part of its domain, the Congress of Vienna (9 June 1815) settled Netherlands and Belgium together, and the second Treaty of Paris (20 November 1815) confirmed the unification Belgium with the Netherlands under the house of Orange. Yet the Battle of Waterloo occurred on 18 June 1815 - Was it then in France (all be it temporarily, the Austrian Netherlands, the United Netherlands or Belgium? It makes far more sense to me to list the Battle of Waterloo as in Belgium. I appreciate that the list uses present day political geography to assemble historical information but we all understand what is happening.

I might have constructed my endeavour in a clumsy way - the title did not help - but my children's curiosity has not been assuaged by Wikipedia because hitherto it had not addressed such a simple question. I had spent over year on this article see Davroche for dates. If you think that my original purpose is not flawed but my execution was then could you suggest a why forward?Davroche (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I understand what you are trying to do. But it is intersting that you say that you had your children in mind, because my experience has been that it is even more necessary to be precise in use of language with children than with adults who have a background of other knowledge and can contextualise remarks better. In an encyclopedia precision is a desirable goal in almost all circumstances. Most people would not expect the term 'attacked' in the title to include slaving raids by Barbary pirates for example. And whilst I do understand your point about locating a battle by reference to the present name of the country, which I agree is useful, it becomes much more difficult when it comes to political divisions of the past. If we were in an armed conflict with an empire ruling over several present day countries, is it legitimate to describe us as in conflict with each of them, only where the ruler was based, or where actual conflict took place irrespective of the actual composition of the army? In the past, too, a present day country may have been lived in by several tribes or linguistic groups - we may have been in conflict with one and not with another that is now the majority population. You have not included the 1942 Madagascar campaign (of interest to me because my father took part); was that an attack on Madagascar or on Vichy France? Was the Battle of Arnhem an attack on the Netherlands, or Operation Overlord an attack on France? These things are quite subjective even when thinking of the recent past and more difficult as we go back in history.
 * I am reluctant to advise you on what to do other than to try to be objective about both the subject and the terms of inclusion. A list of Wikipedia articles about armed conflicts involving what is now Britain and ordered by present day countries, which is closest to what you are trying to do, might be possible. It is different from an article as such - see WP:LISTS as a starting point for advice. --AJHingston (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Commoners_in_the_United_Kingdom
Hello. I am leaving this message for those who commented on the recent AfD discussion on the article "Commoners in the United Kingdom." The discussion was closed by an admin with the comment "The result was no consensus. To delete, that is. But consensus that this should be editorially improved, e.g. by making it a dab page." I am not sure what articles a "dab" page ought to be linked to, so if someone wants to go ahead and do this, or discuss it on the talk page of the article, that would be fine. In the meantime I will remove the tags on the article as it was improved by Mcewan during the discussion, and I will continue to watch the article to make sure that that business about members of the royal family being "technically commoners" does not make a reappearance in the article without a reliable source. Smeat75 (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet_investigations/CPVIO
FYI: you should know that you have been been accused of sock-puppetry by User:Miyagawa at Sockpuppet_investigations/CPVIO, though it looks like User:Miyagawa is having second thoughts, and he has provided no evidence! CPVIO (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to apologise for dragging you needlessly into this. While it was clear that CPVIO was a sock of some description because of the lack of interaction with other accounts I couldn't see who the other user could be. As you've seen from the unusual posting on his userpage, the only mention of another account was yours. However I thought it was a long shot at best even when posting it because the phrasing you both used were completely dissimilar. Again, sorry about all of this. Miyagawa (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Front yard
Given your comments at the AFD, I was wondering if you might have a look at the article now to see if there is anything obvious you think still needs work. As it happened, many of the sources with information about UK front gardens referenced the garden city movement so I was include quite a bit of detail. But your further thoughts would be appreciated. Cheers, Stalwart 111  08:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your (very) comprehensive response. It all seems fair enough and I'd be more than happy for you to include any part of that as you see fit. I thought I'd address a couple of points in your section 4. On the paving of front yards and the decline of gardeners - the source in question goes into more detail and I perhaps paraphrased too liberally. Essentially, the author is suggesting that because those small front gardens were the public face of a house, there was a social obligation to keep them tidy. According to the source, rather than fill a garage with gardening equipment for the sake of a tiny front garden, many chose instead to pave those sections for use as parking (for which many were already used anyway from the sounds of it). The source suggests this also corresponded with a decline in gardening as a profession. But if there is a better explanation in another sources, by all means we should include it. I don't have a lot of personal first-hand knowledge of such things - I only have that which I found in various books.


 * On the depression - I did make a point of linking to Great Depression in the United Kingdom, rather than simply Great Depression for exactly the reasons you raised. That assertion comes almost directly from that source which is entirely about Britain and not about the US. But if it needs further clarification, again, by all means let's clarify. Again, thank you for your comprehensive notes - I look forward to anything you have time to contribute. Stalwart 111  00:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 TdF KotM
Thanks for your comments in the AfD. I've realised that my objections are to the current article content, not to the fundamental notability, so changed my !vote to keep. Dricherby (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

À la lanterne
Hello Andrew. Thanks for your interest in the topic and for your collaboration in the AfD discussion. Would you mind to proofread the article and fix possible grammatical/stylistic imperfections? English is not my first language ... Thanks. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Fish fingers with custard
Wanted to let you know you were right and I did find some sources. Seems to be a British phrase, can we find any British users? FishFingersCustard (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

City of York list
Hi AJHingston. I'm intrigued you had to change so many lists -- the data should have come from English heritage itself, so things like "type" should be canonical. I'll investigate. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 14:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited York Art Gallery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Malone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for coming along!
Hi, Just want to say a big thank you for all your help at the YMT Luminaries edit-a-thon. You can read a report of the event here. Tweaks are welcome and you can comment on the talk page. Cheers! PatHadley (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Leeds meetup
Hello! I don't know if you're aware but there is a wikimedia meet up in Leeds this Saturday (14 June) if you're interested. Hopefully you can make it. Regards IJA (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Help us improve wikimeets by filling in the UK Wikimeet survey!
Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wikimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:
 * https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JJMNVVD

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)