User talk:Acabashi/Archive 7

Wilhelm Busch copyedit
Hello Acabashi,

thank you very much for investing your time in copyediting (or rewriting) the article Wilhelm Busch, which has been improved significantly. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 08:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Heads up
Hi Acabashi. I'm sorry to hit you with this, but please note that the GOCE April blitz is for articles tagged copyedit in March 2013, not for requests on the GOCE Requests page. --Stfg (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * We had it wrong on the page, so we can count what has already been done from requests. —Torchiest talkedits 00:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry about this -- I hadn't realised either. --Stfg (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

GOCE Requests
Hi. When you take on GOCE requests, please would you mark them as working so that other copy editors know not to do them too, and when you've finished, please would you mark them done so that we know to archive them. Thanks. By the way, Themeparkgc is right: you should only capitalise something like Ride if it's part of the actual name, not if it's merely in apposition to the name. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * First point - point taken. Second point - exactly; my point too. The Batman: The Ride article presumably gives the full official title of the object, as the heading is not Batman (ride) or Batman (roller coaster). In the body text where the assumed correct name is often repeated it is best shortened, to avoid clumsy-looking repartition, and capitalized where repeated to "Ride" or "The Ride", referring to that particular roller coaster to avoid confusion with  roller coasters generally - this is an accepted and common device. There is no official abbreviation of the name, such as Batman: The Ride (BTR), that we can use. We could shorten the repartition to "Batman", but this would be confused with the character. Does the article need to be re-headed ? Thanks for your feedback. Acabashi (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Now I see: you are thinking of "The Ride" as an abbreviated title, whereas Themeparkgc is (as I read him) thinking of it as a generic noun, much as, if we were writing about The Pickwick Papers, say, we might sometimes refer to it as "the book". But I think we are not justified in inventing an abbreviated title that isn't an accepted one, such as referring to the Dickens book as the Papers, so I still believe that Themeparkgc's approach is the more correct. Clearly the article doesn't need to be moved, since its title is the proper name, written in full. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Batman: The Ride is the ride's full, official name so I don't think it should be moved (unless of course there is differing common name, which I don't think there is). Stfg is correct in describing the way I see it in the post above. Themeparkgc   Talk  05:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Heinrich Amersdorffer
Looks good to me! Deb (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

User:206.213.157.4
I don't know. Looking at that user's block log, it appears that another admin blocked him for a year just one month after my attempt at blocking him for 5 years, and when that expired, another admin blocked him for another year one year after that. Perhaps my attempt to block him for five years (which requires using the "Other time" option from the pulldown menu, and then writing in the time that you want, instead of selecting one of the choices on the pulldown menu) didn't work. So I guess we'll just have to do it year by year. Thanks for alerting me to this. Nightscream (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Asda
Re your message: I blocked the new account and semi-protected the article for awhile. Hopefully that puts a stop to it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - May 2013
Delivered May 2013 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage. → Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 09:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=556663821 your edit] to Churchill Hotel may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Sleaford Joint Sixth Form 1 May 2013 - and - The Playhouse (Sleaford) 28 May 2013 - reply
Does this apply even if I work at both of these places and have built the websites and typed the details on the website myself..? If it does then I apologise I didn't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tecreasey (talk • contribs) 08:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back. It doesn't matter whether or not you have written the web site text you have copy-pasted onto a WP page. Unless a web site has openly expressed permission that the text is free to copy, use and be adapted elsewhere then the copy-pasting will be copyright violation. However, I'm sure the organisations with which you are involved wouldn't want others to ape or misrepresent your text. The organization/s in question can specifically allow WP to use their web text or images, but this permission has to be presented to WP. Copyright violation is probably the most dangerous aspect of editing, as it is the one thing where WP can be prosecuted.


 * Even if organisations allow WP to copy-paste their text, that text has still to abide by WP guidelines, and not be seen as promotion ( WP:NOTPROMOTION ) or spam ( WP:ARTSPAM ). In schools, particularly, the text should fit-in with schools' guidelines found here: WP:WPSCH/AG. Therefore, the best way to develop an article is to add text which is supported by independent reliable secondary sources as inline citations: WP:SOURCES, rather than the primary source of the object's web site, which is often biased - see the text and refs I added on The Playhouse page.


 * Although the school is notable, there may be little to find on the theatre, which might have to be merged with the Sleaford article under "Landmarks". If it was a Grade I or Grade II* it would be automatically considered as notable for its own article.


 * I have added a "find source" template to the talk pages of the two articles to help you find independent sources. If you need any further advice please don't hesitate to get back. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Willoughton
It's not like anybody would use wikipedia to search up Willoughton so why revert it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenClubley (talk • contribs) 17:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - June 2013
Delivered June 2013 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage. → Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 04:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:NHLE
Please see Template talk:NHLE -- PBS (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Revesby, Lincolnshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Stanhope (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) 11:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited St Martin's Church, Ancaster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ancaster (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) 10:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - July 2013
Delivered July 2013 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage. → Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 00:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK
I nominated an article that you started for DYK - Template:Did you know nominations/St Peter's Church, Ropsley. SL93 (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for that SL93 - much appreciated. Acabashi (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that DYK articles should be more diverse with their subjects. With only the creators/expanders nominating their own articles for DYK, there is not much diversity. I'm glad that you appreciate me nominating the article for DYK. It is not the longest article, but it is still a quality article. SL93 (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for St Peter's Church, Ropsley
The DYK project (nominate) 20:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for St Peter's Church, Ropsley
The DYK project (nominate) 20:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for St Peter's Church, Ropsley
The DYK project (nominate) 20:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for St John the Evangelist's Church, Corby Glen
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Kaitlin Howard on KSHS page
Hiya,

Hope this finds you well.

I've noticed that I have been removed from the KSHS page as a notable student. I understand reasons given for this and happily appreciate checks need to be in place for this, but a small amount of google searching could verify my notability. I am the only Kaitlin Howard that comes up as an actress on google, the very first on the search list in fact, am on imdb and am also on Wikipedia under the cast section of british sci-fi series Chronicles of Syntax. I also have fan pages on Facebook and twitter and also a well maintained website www.kaitlin-howard.co.uk, am a member of spotlight, Equity and can be found on castingcallpro.com

I do find it a little disheartening that just because I do not have a WP page - which are very time consuming and in some cases difficult to set up - that I am not "notable". I can appear as professional everywhere else it seems, but if not on a user generated web encyclopedia, where facts are not always factual, I appear not to actually be verified as who I and the acting profession know I am.

I attended KSHS at the same time as Abbi Titmus, went on to be head girl and have had, some would say, a far more savoury professional career than Abbi in the field the school is a specialist in.

I have been in some very notable theatre productions, worked with film and soap stars, have various film and television credits and feel that I should be able to represent my old school in a favourable light professionally as it is a specialist performing arts academy.

More than happy to discuss this in person and provide old school photos if needed to prove I went to the school, and professional proof to say I have worked with the likes of Henry Winkler (Happy Days), Kurtis Stacey (Emmerdale), Tachai Newall (Waterloo Road) and Renny Krupinski (Brookside and writer of The Bill).

My number can be found on my website so please do call if you want me to verify anything else.

Yours in friendly anticipation Hayley Krupinski nee Walker (Kaitlin Howard) 22nd July 2013

Sorry if formatting is incorrect. I am a loss with Wikipedia and how it works - hence I have never created my own page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.235.240 (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. You may indeed be notable and have attended the Kesteven and Sleaford High School, and if you are, I would be willing to help write an article. As I mentioned in the edit summary when I removed the Kaitlin Howard name, a person to be notable for this WP article needs their own article, or if not, needs multiple independent sources to prove notability, in which case an article can be written anyway. I would be careful about writing an article about yourself - it is not forbidden, but could be seen as a conflict of interest.
 * A Google search reveals, as you say, Facebook and Twitter, and indeed LinkedIn, but these are unacceptable as anyone can set up a social networking page under any name. Imdb is too considered an unreliable source as people are invited to add to these pages. These types of "proof" are often added to WP pages, and typically quickly removed. It is not difficult for anyone in the business, notable or not, to be a member of a union and add themselves to entertainment listing sites - I have myself a professional web site, and am on StageJobsPro, and have worked for many years as a designer in the theatre, with multiple mentions in reviews in Stage and regional newspapers, but for WP I would not consider myself notable.


 * Your photographs of yourself wouldn't necessarily provide proof, and could be seen as self-referencing if used.
 * You say that you have "professional proof" for notability - this proof would best be multiple reviews in independent reliable publications, preferably national, with the emphasis on 'multiple'.


 * I understand your concern over Titmus, but she, with an article with numerous refs to national newspapers, is considered notable (see BLP), sometimes for stuff that isn't particularly to do with her acting talent, but WP is all to do with verifiability and notability, with the 'worth' of a person meaning nothing. As she has a WP article she is still on the KSHS page, but won't remain there long if proof is not found for her attendance. I also understand your observation on factual inaccuracies that constantly creep into WP, and without adequate, or any, reference proof - it is why serious editors spend an inordinate amount of time cleaning up articles - but it is like painting the Forth Bridge.


 * If you would like help in a Kaitlin Howard article, please add here independent references that you think might fit the bill - please refer to the above for what these might be. As you have contacted me, any article produced would be reviewed by other editors before uploading - an "off-the-cuff" article could be speedily deleted and make any subsequent good article more difficult to be accepted.
 * Cheers. Acabashi (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - August 2013
Delivered August 2013 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

-- EdwardsBot (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Edmund Weaver (astronomer)
Orlady (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sheriffs
I actually plan to "datify" all of the lists eventually. The List & Index Society published a list of all sheriffs (as far as known) from the Conquest through 1831: that plus the London Gazette allows us to set a date for all of them. (This is useful because sheriffs are usually nominated around Martinmas; so a sheriff said colloquially to have served in "1700" would probably have served from Martinmas 1699 to Martinmas 1700.) It will be a while, but those lists have been a work in progress for years. Choess (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response Choess. I think it would be wise to create a new format as you describe for a complete Sheriff page, or number of Sheriff pages, and then change layouts en bloc, as the reader could be confused by piecemeal changes that could take a long time. Is there an overarching talk page that discusses these proposed changes ? Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you mean by "a complete Sheriff page". I'm not sure if any of them are complete. Are you saying you'd like me to use one date format as I go, then switch all the date formats when the page is complete? Given that there are so many other things heterogeneous about this set of pages (missing years, at least one page at "List of Sheriffs...", one page in a tabular format, etc.) this seems a bit like busywork. I'm not sure there's a central discussion page, but should notify the other main contributor to these. Choess (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Harry the cat
Don't know why you or anyone else is objecting to the inclusion of Harry the cat at CCLR. He lives there and is entitled to be included on that page. It's out of season now but when I get details of the book I will repost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpacarter (talk • contribs) 19:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment per Cleethorpes Coast Light Railway. There is nothing wrong with including the lovely Harry, if he is notable. Just because something&mdash;animal or human&mdash;lives somewhere doesn’t entitle it, in itself, to be included in an encyclopaedia, and we only have your word that he is a denizen of the station&mdash;I'm sure you are right but this is not good enough unfortunately. Importance and relevance has to be established. If he is important as a cat, then perhaps you could write an article on him; if he is relevant, please show why a rat-catching cat is essential to the running of the station&mdash;maybe there is a reference (newspaper ?) to show that perhaps Harry reduces a rat population that is overrunning the station. I know very well that there are many other non-notable living entities that are added to Wikipedia articles, but this doesn’t excuse one more. If you might feel I have an unreasonable objection to cats, being a dog lover, please be dissuaded. I have added text and refs to, and protected the notability of, Catmando and Simon (cat), and would be willing to help you write an article on Harry (if notable) so that he can be reasonably linked to the CCLR article. You say the book is out of season, which could imply it is a vanity publication, which could make it unreliable unless the author or publisher is notable themselves in Wikipedia terms&mdash;which is why I mentioned the credibility of ISBN (post 1965 books) on your talk page. Many thanks for getting back, and do so again if I can help further. Acabashi (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The cat nor the book is not out of season, the running of the railway is seasonal, the staff only attend on some days. I will ask them about the ISBN of the 15" railways book and photo and page number of Harry (the cat). He is often on CCLR twitter page https://twitter.com/CCLRsteamtrains and Facebook https://en-gb.facebook.com/realsteamtrains. I would appreciate any help resolving this as Harry is quite well known and linked to CCLR, to exclude him would be wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpacarter (talk • contribs) 21:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Excluding Harry generally could be ‘wrong’ in principle if he is notable in terms defined by Wikipedia. Even if he is notable (in which case an article can be written on him - a good test of notability), his actions could be seen as a trivial (removable) aspect of the article unless serious reliable third-party sources can show that he has had significant impact on the station, not just popularity. Facebook and Twitter are not acceptable as evidence for Wikipedia as anyone can set up social networking pages, and anyone can add to them. Harry might be quite well known locally, but does he have widely seen significance for his work ? Let’s see who publishes the book, its reliability as a possible third-party non-CCLR source, and if what is written there is of a non-trivial nature. Acabashi (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Beverley Grammar School
Hello Acabashi, on the page Beverley Grammar School you wrote that the Notable alumni requires improvement by it not following the verifiability or notability policies. And that It requires improvement, what would that include? Aidancrane (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Aidancrane. Verifiability or notability policies are linked within the banner at the head of the section. The problem here is not notability (they are all notable here as they have WP articles), but verifiability, which means citations to sources that show they attended the school. Generally this is especially important for living people, which in this school there is only one. It would be easy to add anyone to school alumni, but where would be the proof that they belong ? The linked person's article may note the school but may not provide evidence of attendance - one of the tenets of WP is that WP doesn't use unreferenced stuff on linked pages for self-reference. I hope this helps. Acabashi (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Would the Schools own website with their similar page of Notable alumni cervise or would that not be an adequate source?
 * http://www.beverleygrammar.co.uk/about/notable-alumni/ Aidancrane (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)aidancrane (talk) 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The usual requirement would be a source independent to the school's web site. However, I myself would not be too exercised over this source in this school's case as it would be unlikely that they would lie :) There may be other editors who would take a stricter view. If you can find other sources to augment the school Notable alumni page it wouldn't harm. It seems that the school may have gone through name changes (Beverley Free School ?) over the years, so it might be useful to add subsections per any different school name and add the relevant alumni attending under those, with a citation for the names mentioned to the school web site. Add   after the first name in the list and   for each subsequent person. A useful guidelines page for schools is WP:WPSCH/AG. Cheers, Acabashi (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Why did you erase my edits
Sir, I believe your information about the Soviet Foxtrot Class submarine "Black Widdow" is Incorrect. The vessel is currently Morred off the shore in some city in England. In the worst condition possible if you look at pictures of the submarine you will clearly see my information was correct!

Respect and Regards

Capt. Samuel W Bamford U.S Navy Captian23:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)24.207.79.251 (talk)
 * Re Submarine U-475 Black Widow - I have partially reverted back to your edits. The refs offered (which I have edited) only state Rochester, so I've added that location. If you can provide a reference showing a more specific location please change it to that. If you edit again it would be wise to add a reason for the edit in the edit summary to avoid others seeing it as potentially disruptive, especially if you use an anonymous IP address, and use vague terms such as "some city" - the text previous to your edit was specific. Apologies for the misconstruction, and if I can help with further editing on Wikipedia, please get back. Acabashi (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

c k prahalad
Dear Acabashi My addendum to the write upon Dr C K Prahalad  is very important to depict history in true perspective I have been closely engaged with both M K Raju and Dr C K Prahalad. DR C K P  was so fit that he could eat 15 eggs at the same time He was very particular about   perfection and even a mistake like a typing on letter C over letter D would not be tolerated

This great man  was very close to m k raju and both shared a guru- shishya relationship My edits to the article   would ensure   history is represented in complete truthfulness Kindly do not remove them

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylaisubu (talk • contribs) 09:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Your comments have been addressed on your Talk Page by another editor. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

North Cowton reply
Thanks for the info on London distances, I am always in favour of consistency and I had just been using the Line tool in Google Earth, which is probably not consistent enough in where it has its placemarkers. Thanks also for the template info for BLB, I have seen it in some articles before, and again I am all in favour of consistency. I have noticed over the past year you have done quite a few copyedits on my efforts to put more info into N Yorks village articles, so my thanks for that too. Between you and KeithD you keep me on the right path.Rimmer1993 (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind comment - I think I owe a lot to KeithD too, as much of my place editing has been influenced by him through osmosis - quietly checking the way he does things. Something you do that I think is admirable is fulsome edit summaries - it's advised to be "brief" but the more substantial, and with project links, avoids capricious adding and reverting and shows later (sometimes scurrilous) editors that a serious eye is being kept on the article. There is a device that allows for more words in the summary - I've forgotten where it's accessed. Acabashi (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia
The encyclopedia that not just anyone can edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.232.68 (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If I get the gist of this - certainly if the intent is to degrade the integrity of the encyclopedia with your 'Dick Sucking Lips' original research here, including unattributed content, and a dabbed wikilink that does not support your preferred terminology. Acabashi (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of Vandalism
My edits are not vandalizing. I have a reason for my edits. I feel that my city is being unfairly portraying with the "crime" section of your page, and I do not appreciate it. Not every single city has crime stats on them, so why should Winnipeg? I am very proud and passionate about my city, and I DO NOT appreciate your page putting my city in a negative light as you did. It would appear that Wikipedia is not is a position to be isolating long-time users such as myself considering your financial position. I'm asking that you respect my position and allow me to remove this content from the page.

Thank you for respecting my position and wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cokejoint (talk • contribs) 20:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. I see that your concerns have been answered on Greenmaven's page here. Apart from the points Greenmaven made about your previous edit on the same article, you did not include an edit summary to explain your blanking of properly referenced text. Mass blanking of verified text is considered vandalism, especially if no reason is given. If you feel that the article shouldn't contain referenced crime statistics please add your concerns to the article's Talk page to attempt a consensus in your favour - here. Thank you. Acabashi (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Sol Invictus page
Hi, I recently tried to delete some biased information on the wiki information page without actually adding where my references came from. You reverted the page back but I just wanted to send you on the link which I received from Chicago University. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/calendar/invictus.html

I was hoping you might be able to add it back as the current information on the page is wrong and is being revised by someone with a Christian outlook and which contradicts the facts. I'd appreciate it if you could have a look as my own edits are being overwritten and I'm wary of being wrongly blocked as a vandal.

Thanks so much. Justthetruth1 (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Justthetruth1.
 * My concern is not the 'truth' of the article nor the possible reasonableness of your argument – neither about which I am knowledgeable enough to make a judement – but that you blanked 13000+ words, which, on balance, requires more than an edit summary. The automated ClueBot NG reverted your similar blanking the same day. I note, from looking at the page's revision history, that there is much contention over the current content of the page. I advise you to add your concerns on the Sol Invictus Talk page, however, looking at the frequency of people adding to that Talk, you might want to ask for assistance in the Talk pages of the various projects under which this article falls – these can be found, and navigated to, through the banners at the top of the article's Talk page. In the meantime I suggest you don't mass blank anything from articles before a Talk page consensus is reached.


 * Your link to the University of Chicago-sponsored James Grout's Encyclopaedia Romana appears a good source, which you could use to cite information in the page. If this source counters other information in the article, you could add the counter view supported by a citation to this source. If you need more assistance on this or other articles, please get back. Many thanks, Acabashi (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for taking the time to reply. I should have checked the regulations more thoroughly before I deleted anything. I'll follow your suggestions and, hopefully, be able to include the verified information in the future. Cheers again for helping. Justthetruth1 (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that and Happy New Year. Acabashi (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year Acabashi!
Many thanks for that Asteuartw, and I wish you the best for a good and prosperous 2014. Acabashi (talk)

A kitten for you!
hi, hope you have a good day or afternoon

Rock metal Girl (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC) 
 * I hope so too - and have a good one yourself :) Acabashi (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Changes to page 'Sports Agent'
Hi,

I'm just inquiring as to why the changes I made to the aforementioned article took away from its effectiveness.

Thanks.

50.101.13.122 (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. The use of the words his/her is a little clumsy, although I understand the reasoning might be to remove the implication that sports agents are exclusively male. Perhaps changing the 'his' or 'his/her' to 'their' would be neutral and stay direct. I see that the sentence wasn't your original addition, but with a little trimming it would read even better with no repartition in the second clause of the sentence after the comma, as this is obvious from the first clause. Changing the thing to plural makes sense of the use of 'their':


 * NFL agents are not permitted to receive more than 3% of their client's playing contracts, and NBA agents not more than 4%. or
 * NFL agents are not permitted to receive more than 3%, and NBA agents not more than 4%, of their client's playing contracts.


 * I hope this helps and thanks for the query. Acabashi (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, that actually helps a lot. I initially changed it to 'their' but ultimately saved the page with 'his/her' because I thought it might seem clearer. Thanks. Are you planning on changing the passage at all?

50.101.13.122 (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I hadn't really thought of it, but I've had a go. A lead in an an article summarizes the contents of an article, but in this one the stuff in the second sentence is not mentioned further down - so I've put it under 'Role'. The 'Role' section seems a bit fractured with stuff about the USA, Europe and Soccer all being a bit mixed up so we are not sure what relates to what. Why not have a go at copyediting it - you can't do much harm - it might be changed but you will only be seen to be a 'good faith' editor - if not, get back to me. If you edit add a substantial explanation in the edit summary so the edit is seen as innocent. If I can help with anything further, please get back. Cheers. Acabashi (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Many thanks for that Titodutta, much appreciated - and thanks for being so considerate to an editor (me) who added an erroneous/bemusing note on your Talk page. Acabashi (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Gun Park Memorial Page
Reference asked for the sculptor of the Memorial. Please read the article - http://missiontelangana.com/the-story-of-telangana-martyrs-memorial/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.188.229 (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine. The addition you made was not referenced to this source and contained non-encyclopedic hyperbole. You can add the name of the sculptor back but as an editor please don't use terms that puff-up the person. You could use a direct short quote from the source however, something like this &mdash; Aekka Yadagiri Rao, a "nationally acclaimed sculptor, who retired as Professor in Department of Sculpture from JNTU" (include the quote marks) which you can ref as:  
 * Any other queries you have on this or other articles, please get back. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is titled as Gun Park, but it is actually Memorial for Independence of Telangana region. Can change the page name to "Telangana Martyrs Memorial". Or should I separate redirect pages for these titles ? 198.169.188.229 (talk)


 * An article name change to Telangana Martyrs Memorial looks sensible - I have done this. The stuff you've added is pretty short of wikilinks to other articles - it would be useful if you could add these as well. I have started a copyedit to give the article an encyclopedic tone, and trim down superfluous text, and have sectioned into appropriate parts. Perhaps you could have a go at copyediting and wkilinking the rest ? Any advice needed, just ask. Acabashi (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries are useless if people don't read them
I note your advice above to Capt. Samuel W Bamford that "If you edit again it would be wise to add a reason for the edit in the edit summary to avoid others seeing it as potentially disruptive, especially if you use an anonymous IP address".

Edit summaries are useless if people don't read them.

I made an edit to an intro, changing the numeral 5 to the word five per MOS and left the edit summary "Number per MOS". You reverted me with the edit summary that my change was "identified as test/vandalism". 122.61.245.213 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right - apologies. I shall remove my note on your page. I have changed your KMs edit to miles (with convert template) in the lede per the article convention and other article templates, added further convert templates therein, and removed blatant editorialising. You appear very conversant with Wikipedia policy (MOS), and others' spam, irrelevant and vandal edits, and link-throughs for just 10 article edits - congrats for quite a learning curve - have you considered setting up a user account ? Acabashi (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I never made a KMs edit, I changed numeral 5 to five, per MOS. You have changed it back to a numeral which does not comply with MOS.122.61.245.213 (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back. Perhaps I wasn't specific/clear enough - sorry. You changed the "5 km" to "five km". You are quite right to refer me to guidelines. It is true that the addition of a number is recommended as a word up to 'nine', and then as a figure above that number as a general rule &mdash; per WP:ORDINAL, an expanded version of that in MOS:. The guidelines don't seem to give specific advice on geographical place-to-place distances, although they do so on all other number usage - I just may not have found this advice.
 * In place articles there is a common (but not obligatory) editing convention that distances from place to place have been expressed as numbers, even in the lede, especially if throughout the article there is use of the distance convert template – 3 mi – a template result which is useful for those who are conversant with Kms rather than Miles (or vice versa). There were a number of conversion templates already in the article, with 'miles first' and as numbers. If this short article had only one distance mentioned I would have left it as was, but as "five kilometres" (fully spelt out per MOS) or changed it to "three miles (five kilometres)". As the article had numerous distances in template form I used that as an 'article convention' for consistency thereby making it more understandable throughout for readers. Your point, well made, indicates a seeming anomaly in guidelines that I will take up with MOS and experienced editors in this field. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi

Thanks for welcoming me. How to I ad a reference for the information I added to the article? It's from the radio station's website in the form of. PDF press release

Thanks Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus7272 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Mark, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for your good faith addition to Angela Catterns, which I reverted, not particularly because it was unreferenced, but because it added a suggestion that 2UE is "struggling" – I know that was super-picky of me :) It was a well-written addition. There is a 2EU mention of her on their web site, but the page is pretty promotional. Perhaps a better source would be The Australian reffed as –   – copy and paste this.
 * You could add back your text with this source, but best to leave out the "struggling" (that is best mentioned and reffed in the 2EU article), and the term "of late" is a bit vague for Wikipedia - what would it imply if your addition stays as it is by 2020 ?
 * I notice that you tried to add an image of Catterns in the article - a nice idea that went a bit belly-up for you. It would look good in the infobox. I can't find the pic on Wikipedia or Wikipedia Commons - if you can point me to it I'll show you how to add it in.
 * Wish you well with your editing - willing to help further if you need it. Acabashi (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Tethya aurantium
Hello Acabashi,

I modified the "Tethya aurantium" entry, because in the "Venus` Flower Basket" entry, the Tethya aurantium was called "orange puffball sponge" and I thought that such name was also very common. Maybe it could be useful to create a redirect page, so that "orange puffball sponge" could direct to Tethya aurantium. Unfortunately i don`t know how to make it. Bye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.167.204.14 (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. They do look like separate types of sponges so a redirect is probably not the right thing to do, and my change looks wrong. The "orange puffball sponge" is a reasonable addition that I have added back. To redirect, there is a 'Move' down-pointing arrow in a tab at the top of the page, but only if you register as a user - why not do that as your additions over a long period appear constructive, and the account will give you extra facilities. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Added heading for a floating comment
Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Please add a properly formed reference to support your statement. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Acabashi (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your feedback Why do you not add the fact yourself then. I see that your work on WIK is considerate. Truth is truth.

http://books.google.com/books?id=dYjWQWvwI0kC&pg=PA112&lpg=PA112&dq=Morgan+Rubio+and+pete+rose&source=bl&ots=fDr3jBYKAf&sig=Blrv8O1i99xkjE08tXFUXmtbBYQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TNrOUpfFHfOpsQS2lICQDA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Morgan%20Rubio%20and%20pete%20rose&f=false

http://articles.philly.com/1996-11-24/news/25647120_1_mad-magazine-thrift-store-tv-spots http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1320&dat=19961123&id=QdYjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=suoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3289,5449725 http://www.myheritage.com/research?action=query&formId=1&formMode=0&qname=Name+fnmo.2+fnmsvos.1+fnmsmi.1+ln.Morgan%2F3Rubio+lnmo.3+lnmsdm.1+lnmsmf3.1+lnmsrs.1 Rubiolaw4u (talk) 17:40, 9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.175.159 (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Rubiolaw4u. I have added a section header for the request above. I presume the enquiry concerns a revert I made of the not properly referenced addition for the biography of living person, Pete Rose. Also, the addition concerning a Morgan Rubio had no background information as to how Rubio relates to Rose's 'Personal life' - it was a floating statement with no context so of little use for an encyclopedia. I am willing, as with all new editors, to give advice on properly writing and citing text, but I don't see it as my job to respond to requests which throw the thing back at me under slightly discourteous comments such as "Why do you not add the fact yourself then". I am willing to help but will only do so if met half way. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Wales High School (added to following text)
I thank you for your concern regarding the Wales High School page. I am pleased you have recognaised that I am knew to the editing game so to speak. I was little unsure of what builderbigbill was trying to acheieve on the page and like you I want wikipedia to be both as useful and concise as is possible and thought that reverting to a previous version was the way to stop the excessive and frankly nonsenscial additions from buiderbigbill. I can see now perhaps this is not the right approach and should perhaps look for guidance from a more experienced user such as yourself as to how best to appraoch nuisance users such as builderbigbill. I notice he claims to be a current pupil at the school and seems keen on editing the page with what he feels is relevent information yet seems to forget the fundamental and core values upon which wikipediz is based ie citation. I await your response as to how best to proceed with regardsnto editing the page. Thanks Compact — Preceding unsigned comment added by CompactPine (talk • contribs) 21:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back. I have looked at the editing history of this page and have found at least six (red linked) user accounts that appear to have been set up specifically to edit this page and/or nearby schools/articles, this perhaps an indication of sock puppetry (WP:SOCK) or Meat puppetry (WP:MEAT) from the same or similar IP addresses. I will pass this on to administrators (admins) to investigate all red linked and IP address editors. Offending users, of course, might be from an identifiable school's internet system itself - it happens often. If you are concerned that the page is being consistently attacked by a disruptive user it can be protected by admins through request, or you can make a complaint to admins about a specific user. Further details provided if you need this.


 * Thanks for your concern about the integrity of the encyclopedia - your view is mine entirely. It appears that you might have thought that my edits were part of those by Bilderbergbill - an easy misconception to make, I have made such myself :) If the 'undo' in the edit summary list and whole editing history looks a bit confusing you can go back to the edit (through the editing history) that you feel was best before the page became compromised, go to edit mode for that version, copy the page from the edit window, then go to the current page version, go to edit, and replace what is there with the previous good version. Then in the edit summary note what you have done with something like "Reverted to earlier uncompromised working version". Please note it is always good to add an edit summary - If it is a major revert you could also add "See Talk Page" before your edit summary, and then add a rationale for the change on the article's Talk page. As for editing the Wales page (and others), please see the guidelines I indicated on your talk page. Please get back if you need further advice on this or other articles. Good luck. Acabashi (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Canadian Football
Why would you revert what I would? what do you mean it wasn't constructive? Djicyice (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Materialscientist has answered your concerns on your Talk page. I have also added concerns over copyright violation. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Haworth Pottery edit
Thanks for the edit. I had second thoughts myself on the grounds that the addition of one more specific outlet was perhaps superfluous. Also I notice that I put "the" instead of "The Square", which made "on the square" sound like a new colloquial expression- perhaps on the analogy of "on the town" or "on the bottle"!!!! But, that apart, the formulation is grammatically ok. "it opened....." is a conventional subordinate relative clause, except for the elision of the introductory "which". The elision is acceptable idiom and is often merely implied in conventional practice. But, for different reasons, we must agree to leave it out. It was simply that my abundant feathers were ruffled by that old Wiki strain, "badly written"!!As you'll have seen,I've been beset by other problems - uploading a photo of Haworth Pottery activity .Uploading to Commons went well, but following instructions fervently did not succeed in bringing it onto the page! It is something I've not taken on before. Best wishes, S2308rasc (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I see what you are getting at. With "Most of the pottery's output was sold directly to the public, from the Haworth showroom or the gallery it opened in the square in Grassington, North Yorkshire, the remainder wholesale to other outlets including Heal's and galleries." (the italics your addition), the add of so much text in the centre as adjunct to the sentence I think slightly confused what was being said. It could have gone in brackets, or my particular preference, between mdashes ( &mdash; ) with a little change: "Most of the pottery's output was sold directly to the public&mdash;from the Haworth showroom or its gallery in the square at Grassington, North Yorkshire&mdash;the remainder wholesale to other outlets including Heal's and galleries." Even this I think might split the two original clauses too widely for a smooth read so perhaps a better recast would be to reformulate the whole lot into two sentences, or as one sentence with two clauses separated by a dash, or a semicolon (not my personal preference as I find them difficult to see on WP). An alternative might be "Most of the pottery's output was sold directly to the public from the Haworth showroom or its gallery in the square at Grassington, North Yorkshire, with the remainder wholesale to other outlets including Heal's and galleries."
 * If you can give me the URL for the Anne Shaw pic (not the Wikilink - I did try to find it but couldn't), I'll add in the image for you. I'm presuming you have already uploaded it. Cheers. Acabashi (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

re: Recent edits to Proportional (fair division)
> Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Your addition was not written in the encyclopedic style expected. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Acabashi (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason for my edits was that the article on proportional division made statements about envy-free division without defining it. That alone is not terrible, but the article is of an introductory level in that particular area of mathematics, and I felt I was made clearer to other reader the way I left it.

As is stands, it starts (the relevant section) with: "Obviously, for two players proportional division is the same as envy-free division.". That is not a obvious statement, specially if the reader does not know what envy-free means.

I had done two edits. The first added

"A proportional division might not be envy-free. That is: A player might get a piece that has size 1/n, but still prefer a piece that other player has."

That statement, while in simple language, is **not** informal, and I am surprised to have it deleted.

The second turned

"Obviously, for two players proportional division is the same as envy-free division"

into

"Obviously, for two players proportional division is the same as envy-free division: If I got 1/2 (on my subjective value unit) then the other person got 1/2, and I do not envy that piece"

While I think that is is fully adequate as it was, I admit it is not formal. I propose

"Obviously, for two players proportional division is the same as envy-free division: If a player 1/2 (on his subjective value unit) then the other piece is 1/2, and the player does not envy that piece."

Note that 'envy' is being used in the techinical sense found in the envy-free article. I think the 'formalization' detracts from the readabily, and would prefer the previous version.

I have not edited wikipedia in quite a while, and I was rather unpleasantly surprised by this. It just seems this reverse was not well studied.

One last comment: your message to me did not include instructions as to how to contact you.

Sorry for being agressive. Thank you for the effort you are making. 189.62.80.163 (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No apologies needed for expressing a view forcefully. My objection, as per the note left was on the grounds of encyclopedic style, not content, much of which you have addressed here above.
 * The text: "That is: A player might get a piece that has size 1/n, but still prefer a piece that other player has" would perhaps be better recast something like: "Although a player might receive a 1/n size piece he might still prefer the other player's piece", this also without the capital 'A' after the unnecessary "That is". Brevity is always preferred as long as it doesn't destroy sense.
 * The text: "If I got 1/2 (on my subjective value unit) then the other person got 1/2, and I do not envy that piece" is first person personalising and would be better as third person – you have noted this above. You added this to an existing sentence viz "Obviously, for two players proportional division is the same as envy-free division:" The word "obviously" (not yours) is implying a truth defined by an editor and need not be there.
 * As for not studying the addition, I did, as with all potential reversions which are not obvious vandalism. The original section was/is not of the best content or style as you observe, but was of reasonable construction before you added to it.
 * As you seem to have addressed the style you might like to add back - I would prefer you to do this as you seem conversant with the subject.
 * I am presuming that if you have edited here before you have done so under a different IP address.
 * The instructions (lack of ?) to contact me are found in the signed message which includes this Talk page.
 * Thanks for responding, and please get back if you have any other questions. I hope you continue editing Wikipedia. Acabashi (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * >The instructions (lack of ?) to contact me are found in the signed message which includes this Talk page.


 * What I meant was: just having a link "talk" is not enough to show a new wikipedia user how to reply. It might be more convenient to have a link directly called reply that creates a new topic on your talk page (or a reply in some other acceptable fashion) 189.62.80.163 (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Haworth potter at wheel pic
Yes, though technically ok, it DID sound a mouthful somehow. A case of a disfunction between thinking a nd getting it down? On reflection anyhow, it's superfluous? It's odd can't upload the pic. It got Commons confirmation initially. The URL is: http//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anne_Shaw_at_the_wheel,_Haworth_Pottery,_1988.jpg If you can help,I'll be delighted. Cheers, #### — Preceding unsigned comment added by S2308rasc (talk • contribs) 10:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Correction to above! Please read: https://...If you require thumbnail, it's:I've also the full page and file details for web use. Hope youcan fix it by URL. Can't think why it won't come up in a normal, nicely human way! The commons acknowledgment was detailed. Thanks again for your patience, whatever the result. Cheers, S2308rasc (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think your add is superfluous - it's a nice extension of info.
 * The pic seems a bit of a headache, doesn't it. I still can't get at it - are you sure you added free-usage info so it hasn't been deleted ? If you can get to the pic's page on Wikimedia Commons (not Wikipedia), go to the Nav bar at the top of the page and click "Use this file" next to the Wikipedia logo - this will give you the proper thumbnail format.
 * If this doesn't work I suggest you upload it again - what I'm going to suggest might be obvious to you, apologies if so. Change the name of the file or WP will say it already has one by that name from you - sometimes if I make a mistake I have to re-render with slight changes through photoshop as WP sometimes seems to know the same file with a different name - metadata I suppose. Upload through the Commons wizard - on your side bar go to 'Tools' - 'Upload file'. In the blue Nav box choose 'Commons Wizard'. Upload file under 'Upload' / then 'Release rights' will ask through buttons if it's your own work or not - if it is the wiz will auto-free the pic and move on - if it isn't you have to fill in stuff to show why the pic is copyright free (over 70 years old / a web site or book has released rights etc) / then 'Describe' wants you to add a description / then 'Use' will give you a URL and a handy wikilinked thumb format that you can paste on to a page - I would copy these into a word doc for reference. If this doesn't work get back to me. Cheers. Acabashi (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Forget all that - done it ! Go into edit mode for this section and copy the code. Acabashi (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)



Thanks v much. Much appreciated. By "this section" did you mean your User Talk page. At the bottom of the edit page, I note File; Anne_Shaw.... Is that what you mean by "code"? How do I get the pic now onto the page. Sorry about being dim!S2308rasc (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No probs - I meant this Talk page section. But try this - copy this bolded link direct from the page:  Anne_Shaw_at_the_wheel,_Haworth_Pottery,_1988.jpg  Go to the Pottery page and paste it in - look at the 'preview' first to see if it works - add an edit summary for your add. Good luck. Acabashi (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * A good idea but am not certain how to copynpaste! Or can I simply copy manually in writing your bold link and then write it in the appropriate place on the pottery edit page? or could the commons wizard be used to bring it from commons onto the page? S2308rasc (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The Commons wizard wouldn't help here. Try this (for Windows): Place your cursor at the front of the bold link / hold down your left mouse button and scroll along the link to its end / The link should then be highlighted / Hover over the highlighted link and click your right mouse button / a small context menu will drop down / go down the list and click 'copy' - this will save it / go to the page and place your cursor in the edit window where you want to add the file / right click your mouse again, and from the menu select 'paste'. Give it a go because it's good practice - if it fouls up get back to me :) Acabashi (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the useful instruction - I'll certainly use the technique. But meanwhile (back at the ranch, while waiting)I entered the file as per you on the Pottery edit page. Nothing happened. In wild abandon I then right-clicked, selected paste, thus duplicating the file details....In deep pessimism I "saved"...and was stupefied to see the photo on the page!!! Like something from "2001"....The only small snag is below photo and caption is "File: Anne Shaw...". How to get rid without losing pic? Wondered about deleting one of the paired file details on the edit. Any suggestions?  Thanks for your patience and ideasS2308rasc (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well done you. I noticed the duplicate and got rid of the red linked version for you. Any other queries on editing don't hesitate to get back. Acabashi (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * many thanks for your advice and patience. Will add (after a breather) your suggested Grassington outlet sentence. Cheers, S2308rasc (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Lyndon B Johnson had Kennedy killed
I don't understand how making this known isn't constructive. People should know the truth about why the Vietnam war happened. People should know that that era was marked with corruption and scandal. They murdered a populist President for an illegal war, and it would help things greatly I think for people to know that there are not just Presidents, there are good and there are bad Presidents and that in some way shape and form justice has a way of being done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.181.140.113 (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There have to be reliable sources, that everyone trusts, that prove this is the consensus and that state this as a fact. Plus the more serious the charge, the higher the burden of proof. Thanks, Acabashi, for your edit. --Javaweb (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Javaweb

Headmasters Trophy
Hi I have now begun to contruct an article relating to the headteachers challenege with help from people within the school. I am wondering as to wether or not you can help me with citing and sourcing and also with the pitch diagrams ie how to change the names in the diagram. Thanks CompactPine — Preceding unsigned comment added by CompactPine (talk • contribs) 22:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi again CompactPine – re The Headmaster's Trophy, an event specific to Wales High School. I assume that pitch diagrams refers to this article - I would be of little help here. Reliable sources to prove the notability of this challenge will need to be found as I'm fairly certain that this article will be proposed for deletion on the grounds of non-notability. So what you need to show is that this event is of importance outside the school. The way to do this is to find multiple significant and reliable web, newspaper or book sources, independent of the school or any blog, forum or social networking site, that show its significance for Sheffield or South Yorkshire, or nationally – see WP:SIGCOV, WP:NOTE, and WP:EVENT. I have added a template on the article's Talk page to help you do this. Good luck. Acabashi (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Headmaster's Trophy (again)
Hi could really do with some help the article as you said as been made AFD. Two citaions have been aded but the deletion message keeps appearing just wondering where to go from here as the user which keeps propsing deletion seems to be unwilling to either engage in coversation or help improve the article

Thanks Compact — Preceding unsigned comment added by CompactPine (talk • contribs) 11:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I can't see any message you may have added to user Talk pages per the AfD discussion. The onus for improving an article would not be on the proposer for deletion. The deletion banner was added back by a Bot, and removing the notification won't stop the deletion discussion and decision. What I suggest you do is to add a comment on the article's deletion discussion here, explaining why you think the Trophy is notable, and quoting any Wikipedia guidelines that may help your cause.


 * The citations you have added are from the school's web pages which may not be enough to prove the Trophy's notability beyond the school - see the message and links above. A decision to delete or not will not be made by a head count of those for and those against, but upon the validity of arguments, with the process typically taking about a week. It would be useful if you could find multiple non-school sources in the meantime, these not just showing that the Challenge exists, but that it is of importance. Good luck with this. Acabashi (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

it is correct
i had written nayantara's other names as queen of tamil cinema. it is correct she is also called like that .why are you always charging that. please don't change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fathimamuneer (talk • contribs) 20:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar
Many thanks for that Anupam - appreciated. Nice to know my work doesn't go by unnoticed. Acabashi (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

St Mary and St Peter’s Church, Harlaxton
Hi, could you revisit St Mary and St Peter’s Church, Harlaxton and have a look at the quote at end of Memorials section. There is a duplicate word "the" and I cannot work out if it should be "them the" or if there is some word missing. Many thanks. Keith D (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You are right keith - corrected and appreciated. Nice of you to copy read such an involved article - there's always something that slips through. Acabashi (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Article already looks a good shout for GA! I'll give it a full read later and will get somebody to review it! Keep up the great work!♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Nikkimaria (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks - will make good use of it. Acabashi (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Muir-Hill
Hi

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 (talk • contribs) 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
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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Portals
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)

Edits
I made updates to Cathedral Prep page to reflect correct information - why did you delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.201.242 (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
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 (talk • contribs) 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&mdash;ie interpretation of a supposed source&mdash;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&mdash;your user name you admit is a pseudonym of, and is the author La' Chance&mdash;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
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)

Drawing of Kim Jong-un
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)

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

Re: "unconstructive" 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   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?
Hi Ferrariboy20. Re your adds to St Peter's School, York (24 November 2014), ie Please see Schools guidelines, particularly regarding Avoiding advertising. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "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."

Haxey Hood
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 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
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
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
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
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
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 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!
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: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 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

Up (2009)
Hi! I was one of the people who watched Up in theaters. And I completely enjoyed it! Now, I was reading the summary and I saw "a thunderstorm". I have been taught by my third grade teacher that you don't always use a. You also have to use an sometimes, so I though that "an thunderstorm" is correct. Could you please refine on this, because I searched it up and now I am confused. I was sure "an thunderstorm" was right, but maybe not. Please respond! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theepiclaser (talk • contribs) 22:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * In cases such as this, as a helpful rule of thumb you can use written word spelling as you would speak the words. Generally where words start with a consonant, we use 'a'.  Where words spoken begin with a vowel sound, whether or not they start with a written vowel, we use 'an'... an 'analogue', 'engine', 'inquisition', 'oligarchy', 'understanding'. Be careful with 'H' though..  the written 'an honor' (spoken dropped H), would be correct, although through common speech putting 'an' before some 'H' words has changed the previous way of doing it, (although 'an' would traditionally be correct), such as  'a hotel' , 'a halibut', 'a heated'. If 'an' or 'a'  doesn't sound right when you speak it, it's likely that that is not the way to go. Thanks for getting back... if I can help with anything else, please get back. Acabashi (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

complain about how they edit my wordings
If you want to edit my words than Why you made here edit option I always write my true words in the discussion And than you erase them and write in your wordings I live in tando bago and i know all about tando bago You can edit my wordings If you know all about the tando bago Zaraq.baloch (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you live in a place makes no difference. For an encyclopedia your additions to Tando Bago were very poorly written, did not contain a reliable supporting source for your text or the nonentities you added, and were therefore disruptive to the page. Acabashi (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Richard Harvey (talk) 07:43, 11 November 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) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User talk:User:Acabashi
Yes, User talk:User:Acabashi exists. And should probably get deleted. Perhaps a history merge? I don't really know how to fix this. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I just moved it to User talk:Acabashi/misplaced. Do whatever you want with it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that... I don't know how we usually deal with these wrongly placed things. Acabashi (talk) 09:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Porsches
Porsches Acabashi. A year ago you took some photos of two porsches in Essex. Are they still there and can you pass on the location.

SOONMARK (talk) 10:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Porsches. Acabashi. Do you know the location of the two porsches you photographed in essex last year? Are they still there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SOONMARK (talk • contribs) 10:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Smyths Toys
Ahoy!

While I don't have any problems with your edit on it. Do you think either of the sources that got removed in the process, namely http://www.irishtimes.com/news/four-toy-store-founders-share-14m-as-sales-boom-1.1194412 and http://www.businesspost.ie/profits-halved-at-smyths-toys-2/ (this shows up as http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2007/02/11/story20962.asp in the article edits, but are basically the same story) could be of any use in expanding it?

I also get the feeling that http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/news/huge-rise-in-profits-as-smyths-toy-seller-expands-31594459.html and http://www.irishtimes.com/business/retail-and-services/toy-retailer-smyths-records-2-7m-uk-pretax-profit-1.1559500 may serve a purpose to the expansion of the article.

Any thoughts on any of the sources? RS wasn't my strong point when I did most of my editing around Wikipedia and it still isn't. On another note, all that vandalism from the 51 IP, you'd think ClueBot might have took a look at at least one of the edits... MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?)  (Now THIS... I did.) 23:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello. Thanks for your feedback. The sources when I tried access either did not support the text written or were dead refs. If they were dead when I accessed them it might have been better for me to add a dated 'dead ref' template. As for others, they were blatant promo links to the company's selling pages which would be considered advertising. If you wish to add relevant one's back I wouldn't object, and I could do it myself when my day job permits. Best wishes. Acabashi (talk) 08:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Berden Open Gardens 2nd July 2017
Dear Mr Acabashi I write to you as the organiser of The Berden Open Garden event which you attended on 2nd July 2017. The purpose of me writing to you is to request the deletion of all photographs sourced by yourself during the course of that visit and which you posted on the Wikipedia associated web sites.

You were welcomed to the event and we worked hard to ensure that we provided for you an enjoyable afternoon. You were welcomed as a garden lover to enjoy the effort we had made to make our gardens enjoyable places to be. How could you betray the trust we gave you by using your professional status as a photographer to invade our privacy and leave us feeling used and vulnerable by sharing what is personal and private with the rest of the world for personal gain.

Whilst we collectively had no objection to the taking of photographs for the purpose of personal reminiscences over an afternoon well spent. There was never any implied or express permission to take photographs for display on the Wikipedia web site. If such permission had been sought by yourself the request would have met with a resounding ‘No’ in the case of every householder. By not telling us of your true intention, by your omission, you deceived us and entered into a subterfuge that is not consistent with your professional status.

There is a longstanding tradition of welcoming people into our gardens and sharing the joys that gardening can bring. However, it is entirely different, is it not, on the one hand to invite guests, friends and family to enjoy your home and garden with you and on the other to unwittingly share the privacy of your home and garden with an unknown worldwide population through the computer and over whom you have no control. Your photographs show views of the homes of our ‘Open Garden’ participants that would never be shared with the uninvited.

The photographs on computer are alarming in the manner in which they have been presented. Whether intended or otherwise, the photographs, in many instances, amount to a catalogue of the statuary contained within ‘Berden Hall’. Apart from any other consideration, clearly those plotting with dishonest intent could be facilitated and ought not to be. How could you leave us feeling so vulnerable.

Likewise, the photographs showing the various faces of Berden Hall, The Old Vicarage and The Priory Farm and of Roberts Barn garden which would not normally be available to the general public. They have been taken with a high 09:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)09:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)09:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)~resolution camera. It is possible to greatly enlarge the images. Addresses are clearly identified. Once again those plotting with dishonest intent ought not be so facilitated.

As the organiser of our very first village ‘Open Garden’ event I can’t begin to tell you how alarmed and distressed I have been since the discovery of the photographs. I have shared with my fellow gardeners their worries and concerns too. Your photography, professional as it is, is completely outside the context of our Open Garden event. We are left feeling hurt, distressed, vulnerable and betrayed at your lack of consideration for our wellbeing. We hope that what has happened was unintentional, indeed we believe that the effects of your photography on us was unintentional, that you misjudged the effect of your photography on us as individuals and as a community.

Finally, I would like to add that the sole purpose of our Open Gardens event was charitable, our community raising funds for improvement to our Village Hall. The publication of the photographs has caused so much anxiety among participating villagers, many of whom are ageing and retired, that it threatens the likelihood of future charitable events where owner participation is desired.

We trust that you will feel able to remove from the Wikipedia sites all the photographs you took dated 2nd July and by doing so restore our faith in you as a true professional.

Yours faithfully,

John Tippett 31.54.167.127 (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr Tippett,


 * Thank you for raising these concerns.
 * These photos were taken by me in good faith during a web advertised public open day of Berden village gardens. Berden Hall itself is open to the public for open days and other social occasions, but admittedly not on a day-to-day basis, like many locations that are intermittently but publicly open. There was no notification on the web advert for the event, or on the day, forbidding the taking of photographs, or stipulation for use, this of the Hall or anywhere else in the village, indeed many other people were doing so, presumably either for personal use, on social media which is effectively worldwide publishing, or for other purposes. Some of my photos supporting my Wikipedia article on Berden village church St Nicholas' are indeed on the village website, although not attributed to me as the copyright license requires. However, I am making no excuses for myself if my images of the event contravene privacy and/or de minimis. I did avoid including people, which would need special permission.
 * There are a number of other photos of the Hall, Priory and village houses on other web sites with the same freedom of use as Commons, which seem not to have encountered the same problem.
 * As a gesture of good faith I have asked that all photos be removed in Category:Berden Priory / Category:Berden Hall / Category:Berden Hall garden ASAP.
 * I regret any distress caused. I suggest that any future village event stipulates clearly, on the web and at the event, that no photos are to be taken (difficult I know when cameras/cell phones can be so small) or that any taken must not be uploaded to the web... including social media which is de facto publishing to the world, and particularly Facebook. See presumably your own public Facebook page Berden Fête 2017, with 79 photographs including details of the Hall, and those of recognizable people, close-ups of children, and cars where permission was probably not sought... these images are now in the public domain for any use regardless of any strictures that are added to any image by the uploader.
 * My apologies again and thank you for bringing this to my attention.
 * Update: please see The Uk Photographers Rights Guide, based on current UK law, and particularly the section 'Private Property' which indicates that a person invited onto private property can take photographs unless a restriction for such is specifically stipulated on entry, which in this case it was not. Acabashi (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Radio edits
Please explain why you are deleting my edits. They are not false changes its all accurate and other pages contain presenters so if what ive put isnt right then i expect you to go on every single radio station page and delete presenters listed.

from ITV fan 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ITV Fan 2016 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Your additions on Wave FM (and Heart Scotland) might be factual but run against Wikipedia policy guidelines. This is why myself and a number of responsible editors do indeed continue to trawl though and clean up these stations... your expectations on this I assure you are being carried out. I have explained fully the reasoning for this cleanup on your talk page and in edit summaries, with the relevant links, just as have others, so I don't have to repeat them here... if you haven't bothered to read them, please do. I notice that you have not put forward cogent argument against policy guidelines in your reversions... if you believe you are right and want to change consensus on this, take it up on the the What Wikipedia Is Not policy guideline talk page. Just because other radios stations attract what is essentially schedule spam and the additions of nonentities (those without Wikipedia articles), as you have done, doesn't mean we have to accept yours... 'two wrongs do not make a right'.
 * I also note that an IP address, see here, reversed my guideline-implementing edit on Wave FM, with the edit summary: "Added programming and presenter which is what the station and owners want in this article. This information SHOULD NOT be removed again". Outrageous... this page of an encyclopedia is not the station's owned spam page. I will be absolutely open you: I believe this could be you or someone closely associated with you. I will be looking at particularly Scottish radio stations you have edited with a view to possible Administrator sockpuppet investigation on the association of this IP address, other IP addresses, and registered users that might be linked. Sockpuppeteers get banned from editing.
 * I thought band and school articles were rediculous, but radio stations now seem to take the biscuit. Acabashi (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not associated with Wave FM but I agree if they think this information is relevant and want people to know then it should be allowed. Investigate all you like but this is the only account I use for editing.

Also for someone who's hobby is editing Wikipedia pages its ridiculous not rediculous.


 * Typo. Check your many typos in your original message, or are they just ignorance of grammar, syntax and punctuation. By the way, it is 'whose' not 'who is'. I, at least, take my hobby seriously.
 * Again, it is not to do with what a radio station thinks is relevant and wants people to know on Wikipedia... they don't own the page with their name. Radio stations I am sure think everything on their promo site is relevant and should be known, but we don't copy wholesale their site, do we? Of course, you might think a Wikipedia page should be a mirror site... it's certainly a point of view.
 * Whether you or I think something is relevant or not is neither here nor there... agreed policy guidelines, which it appears you still haven't read, are there for the benefit of building a coherent and consistent encyclopedia for our readers. You seem not to have addressed the issue, which is your failing to follow consensus agreed policy. I have not said you are associated with Wave FM, or any of the Scottish radio stations you have edited in a similar fashion, just that you seem to have a special interest in adding scheduling and nonentities to these articles, and that you may be in some way closely connected to other registered users and IP addresses that appear to be doing the same on these stations. Even if you are not being 'helped' in this by others, your editing is still disruptive to policy guidelines agreed by consensus.
 * I am sorry, but you evade giving coherent answers to the real problem of policy guideline noncompliance, in fact it seems you completely refuse to engage with it. Being helpful, I encourage you to take your obvious concerns about needing to add scheduling and people who are not notable in Wikipedia terms to What Wikipedia Is Not talk page, and try to get policy changed. You will see on that page that editors can make proposals, which are then discussed, and if a consensus is agreed in your favour, policy will change. You could also copy the same proposal at the Village pump. This could be something like: "I propose that Wikipedia should allow programming schedules, and lists (standalone or in body text) of presenters and staff without their own Wikipedia articles and without multiple independent sources for notability, for radio station articles"; underneath you could give your reasoning why this scheduling and such people are particularly important for radio stations. If you find doing this would be intimidating, I could do it on your behalf if you request it.
 * Let's see if you get back and discuss your problem working within Wikipedia guidelines. I suspect it will just be another body swerve or repetition of "it's what the radio station wants to see"... prove me wrong on that. Acabashi (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Well I would appreciate it if you could work on my behalf. I feel its important to list presenters as they are the voice of these stations during key local hours which arent networked from e.g London. I feel on for example Bauer and global owned radio stations it should only be local presenters listed with network presenters listed on network pages to avoid duplication. Stations without networking like Wave fm should be allowed to list all their presenters to alert people to local voices.

Thanks in advance not sure if this is the correct way to communicate.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

edit to Saltfleetby
Hello,

You edited the Saltfleetby article in such a way as to suggest that Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe Dunes nature reserve is between the village and the sea. It is not within the village, but down the road from the village. Please change this back so that the salt marsh at the village is not conflated with the salt marsh at the nature reserve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.204.116.125 (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hang on, I just realised I may be muddling Saltfleetby with Saltfleet. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regularuk (talk • contribs) 20:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No probs. Acabashi (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Erich Reimer page edits question
Hi Acabashi. Regarding the edits reversion for Erich Reimer, the NYA sourcing and Seeking Alpha analyst sourcing appear proper. As for filmography, it seems a lot of unaired/post-productionor smaller shows/films are listed on actors’ pages throughout Wikipedia without any sourcing besides IMDB. What other sourcing can/should be done since this seems a consistent trend? Thank you. RememberTheAlamo9 (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The Bethesda Magazine cite link you added back didn't lead to page 4 and didn't mention page 4 in the cite text, which it should have done, and the publication could be mentioned in the body of his article that it was "reported in the Bethesda Magazine", which would therefore be notable enough I think.
 * Reimer is not mentioned as an actor in the lede, and it certainly looks as if he is not significant in this field, therefore the film and television items, if these are important, need adequate sources and the productions might need articles to show they are significant. I know what you mean about actors' pages having pre/post production and sometimes smallfry stuff with or without the unreliable IMDB, but usually it relates to their primary day job and its in amongst other blue-linked productions, which, if not too excessive, is usually acceptable to augment a list. It looked at first glance that these films were perhaps just made up to try to save the article from deletion.
 * Reimer looks to be a man who could invite the contentious attention of editors who might have a COI for or against him or his politics, so it is wise to be balanced and not add uncited stuff that can be shot down. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for the insight and clarification! All makes sense. RememberTheAlamo9 (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)