User talk:Acabashi

This is Acabashi's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 5.5 years

Unsectioned comment added by User talk:Eagleman987

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

08:18, 8 October, 2014‎ (UTC)

Jacks Hatch

Shouldn't it actually be Jack's Hatch per the OS? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a balance thing. Some such as local companies and organizations do (and don't) use the comma. I have put the alternative in the article because there seem to be different views. The PC has Jacks Hatch, and if you go down on Google street view (which I tend to do for places), the official entry sign, which must have been (as is typical) put up by the district council, says Jacks Hatch, even though they also call it Jack's elsewhere. Is it a Hatch owned by Jack or someone called Jacks, or nothing to do with a person? I'll email the PC to get some kind of definitive. Acabashi (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just sent off an email, so we might get some clarification... the PC might have a local historian who knows. It might not historically even allude to a person, or even to a hatch. Acabashi (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No reply from my email in 10 months... I'll send another. Acabashi (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woolbeding

Sorry to revert you on Woolbeding, but there is often confusion between ecclesiastical parishes and civil parishes in England. In Wales, it's much simpler, as the former civil parishes are now communities. Regards, T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony Holkham: I see what you are saying. But in England they are civil parishes and are communities in Wales. As all other place articles in England tend to note the civil parish in the lede, the ecclesiastical is probably best to add under the parish church section. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

South Willingham

Copy from TimF Cop York talk page:
Thanks for your email. Information on how to write UK settlements, with relevant sections, can be found here. You seem to be doing very well... you haven't made any howlers that I made when I first started. There is a tendency among some to look at the guidelines (which are only guidelines) and add any odd snippet under a new very short section, which makes the article a frustrating read for readers. If there is very little to add on a particular aspect I try to put it into its closest appropriate section, even adapting or boxing header titles. The geography stuff in the second para of the lede could possibly go into your new 'Geography' section, with the Belmont transmitter going into the new 'Landmarks' I set up. The history section is very lean now, but I suspect there will be quite a bit to add here... there is a 'find sources' template which I added in the articles's Talk page that could help generally. I assume you are thinking the long serving post office family were the Johnsons - Walter in 1885. Good luck. Acabashi (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link to the Settlements page. Very useful. Yes, it is the Johnsons in the shop. I have copies of the censuses from 1841 to 1911 for SW and it is interesting to see how these families develop. I am having a debate with myself about how much to put in the SW page; I've just added the Belmont para in Landmarks, and obviously linked it to the Belmont page. I don't want to repeat the Belmont page, but add enough to acknowledge the importance of Belmont to the village/parish. I hope I have got the compromise correct! TimF Cop York (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TimF Cop York: Belmont... nice, just right for the precis I think. I think it's fine to add time-related trades/professions/occupations in the article 'History' (I tend to use trade directories, eg: in Grendon Bishop), but actual names can sometimes be a bit tricky unless the people themselves are notable in their own right, or perhaps connected to a notable family... see here. I have a special interest in Lincolnshire, having come from there, so I have virtually all those Lincolnshire trade directories with other useful Lincolnshire stuff on disc, and loads of books on Lincolnshire if you'd like anything special, but you can access directories online, although the site is a bit clunky to navigate, see Special Collections Online.

Something else you might bear in mind is referencing geographic stuff which may run foul of over-particular editors, and which have very little written source evidence. I tend to use and ref Grid Reference Finder (has distance, geoloc and postcode stuff), OS Get Outside maps (deep detailing), OpenStreetMap (access from relevant geograph files on Wikimedia or the geoloc link in articles... shows parish boundaries), Google Maps (which often give parish boundaries), and Google Street View (useful for roadside views where there is no Wikimedia image to add... e.g. see links in Pencombe with Grendon Warren. There should be a reasonable amount for a 'Governance' section that could be added.

PastScape is a good source for landmark scheduled monuments (earthworks, deserted medieval villages etc.), place accessed by name or grid ref. Bus Times is a good source for reffing village/parish bus routes... see South Willingham. British History Online is also a good source for History and church stuff.

Cheers, Acabashi (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself checking the SW page regularly to see what you think of my latest edit! I had not noticed the removal of Central Lincolnshire Vale. I had to look hard to find a geographic description of that part of the county, made more difficult in that it contains two rivers that flow in completely opposite directions! Thank you for the pointers above, I will get around to looking at them soon. meanwhile I still have a bit more to add to SW.

I'm pleased with our joint efforts so far - the page looks good! Regards TimF Cop York (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acabashi. I seem to be straying from the rules, just as I get more confident! The reference to Saundersons of Louth was an attempt to provide more information about the millwrights, in the same way as the double square brackets to Bensons in the paragraph above (on the SW page) links to a Wikipedia article on J W Benson and gives background information on him. The Bensons article on Wikipedia does not mention SW, and I know that, as you say, the Louth Museum article does not either. Justification for Saunderson was in the previous ref (Society for Lincolnshire History & Archaeology). I am obviously using the reference incorrectly - is there a way of linking other web articles please? If not, just get rid of the Louth Museum reference.

In the bit about additional earth on the graveyard, I suppose this gets into the 'original research by the editor' no no! I had looked at the dates of the gravestones in the Monumental Inscriptions article, and realised that there are the odd gravestone between 1802 and 1840 and nothing prior to 1802. Considering that the church had been around since the 13th century, I thought that strange. If you look at Google Street View on Station Rd, by the corner of the grave yard, you can see it is raised up compared to the garden of the house the other side of Church lane. So I concluded that the original grave yard was full and so they simply added a new layer, and only moved the odd stone from the old layer. This is probably the case but I have no other evidence apart from what I have just reiterated. Therefore I will take the bit about the graveyard raising out.

The 1861 census that includes the miller for the first time labels just a few houses specifically, but the miller's household is shown as Mill House, hence my text. But I agree with you - leave it as you have set it. I have found two pictures of the mill two months apart, one with sails, the other without, so I am able to date the sails removal quite accurately at 1935 - I will amend it and add the ref. Take care TimF Cop York (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for shifting the Economic section to the correct place. I meant to look it up but forgot. As a matter of interest, why are we referring to the 2001 population and not the 2011 population please? TimF Cop York (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2011 pop was there previously, added by a now blocked user and with a reflink that didn't verify the information. I found and added one for 2001 but at the time couldn't find the 2011, which I know would be better, but I've now found one. We are 15 months off the 2021. Acabashi (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered why. Thanks for the explanation and sorting it so quickly - I was not chasing you!! As for 2021 -quite! Have a good Christmas TimF Cop York (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about the "The village has a newsletter, distributed quarterly". Is this a newsletter specifically for the village, or does it contain stuff relevant to the wider civil parish? Acabashi (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It generally covers events in the village, because that is where the majority of 'news' originates, but covers other parts of the parish. It is distributed to the civil parish by hand. I know outlying farms get them, but usually when someone is passing! Previous copies are on the SW website. TimF Cop York (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coldred, Kent: Edit

Hi,

I come from Coldred in Kent, my father still lives there, and my mother died in 1994 and was remembered in the village with an avenue of trees as you enter the village, she was 42 at the time.

When you chopped the article down to about 20% of its original size on the 31st of May 2017 part of the article you took out what this

On entering the village from the A2 you will pass down a lovely lime tree avenue that was planted in the spring of 1995 in memory of Helen Mummery of Chilli Farm.

I assume you removed this passage as there it could be inferred that there could be conjecture about if it is a 'lovely' lime tree avenue which incidentally it is but the rest of the passage is a fact so why remove it, its feels a bit harsh to just take it off, it is a fact that the avenue of trees exists and also that it was planted for Helem Mummery and if you have ever visited Coldred? you will see a memorial to her at the end of the trees.

Your reason for removal is this:

(CE / Rm unsourced traveloguese spam and trivia bannered for six-and-a-half years / Cites are needed for uncontentious claims to avoid reducing to a one sentence stub

May I ask how the memorial reference is unsourced and Spam and Trivia? I can send you photos of it if you want to source it?

This is not written in anger but in good faith.

Kind Regards,

Sam Mummery — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.218.122 (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acabashi? Can I ask please why you have not replied to this?

Re: Rachel Reeves revert

Hi Acabashi,

Astor's own page references her antisemitism and given the history of antisemitism by some Labour MPs I felt it to be factual and not editorialised at all. Astor's own page, that I correctly linked to, is the evidence for Astor's being antisemitic and the tweets by Reeves herself are directly praising Astor and her career. --SWragg (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SWragg: Whether or not Astor was antisemitic is neither here nor there. Reeves tweets did not specifically reference any, or support for, Astor antisemitism, only her admiration of Astor for her association with the cause of women. Conflating your claim (probably true) of the "history of antisemitism by some Labour MPs" with Reeves without specific reputable sources that consider she herself is antisemitic, or supports Astor's antisemitism (reply tweets don't constitute this), is complete editorializing. I ride no horse in this issue, only that Wikipedia that must remain neutral and that editors must not embed their own views, particularly if they can be seen to be contentious or potentially libelous, and this especially with living people. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hewelsfield and Brockweir

You moved Hewelsfield and Brockweir Civil Parish to Hewelsfield and Brockweir 'per sensibly argued request'. Can I see the sensible argument? I included 'Civil Parish' in the original title, to make it clear thre article was not about the villages as such. However, I've no objection to the change - and I'm pleased that someone else is taking an interest in the page. Topo122 (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Topo122: @Crouch, Swale: Thanks for your query. The request was made by 'Crouch, Swale' with the rationale that consensus (by use?) is not to have the words 'civil parish' after name combinations, e.g. Walford, Letton and Newton, Monkland and Stretford, Copdock and Washbrook, Idridgehay and Alton. I can find no civil parish that appears to run against this general use. Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't appear to log any of these requests. I'm sure Crouch, Swale will elaborate or correct me if I've misinterpreted the request made. Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The request log is here normally on the technical requests users move it by clicking on the link "move" on the request which links to the request in the move log, see this one for example for Exelby, Leeming and Londonderry presumably with Hewelsfield and Brockweir you went to the page and moved it as normal instead of clicking on the move link. @Topo122: note that when a parish requires disambiguation from some other type of place the usual rule it to put it in brackets, for example Chester Castle (parish). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I was just a bit surprised that there was nothing on the Talk page about the move. I'm considering creating a page for Worth civil parish (in Mid Sussex District); If I do, I'll adopt the title 'Worth (civil parish)', as there is a Worth village that is no longer part of the parish, but in Crawley. Topo122 (talk) 08:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Topo122: As we tend to box together the civil parish and village in one article if they have exactly the same name and spelling, I would leave Worth in this case as it is. Separate civil parish articles are usually created when their titles are different from the village. This existing Worth could be separate articles as Worth, West Sussex (civil parish) and Worth, West Sussex (village) but best only if there is a real wealth of evidence and substantial text that could be attributed to each, and there is invariably much to find if we look, otherwise it could continue a trend we see so often on Wikipedia to litter with annoying little stubs and titchy articles which give next to nothing to the reader. Your Hewelsfield and Brockweir is a very useful in this regard, and in my view about what is needed for a good start to warrant an article. BTY, remember that headings of sections only cap the first word (Civil parish / Listed buildings) unless other heading words are part of an official title. Best. Acabashi (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Worth is an exception in that the parish doesn't include the settlement at all[1], see User:Crouch, Swale/Civil parishes/Splits. However since the parish is in the Mid Sussex district it should be to Worth, Mid Sussex, the settlement is in Crawley so could be moved to Worth, Crawley. Yes you're right that we usually shouldn't split, we should when the parish doesn't include the settlement at all. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale: I see your point. Didn't know Worth village wasn't in Worth parish. Seems sensibly. Both could have hatnotes I suppose as they are historically intimate. I could do a split per what you say, but would it require further consensus discussion elsewhere? Acabashi (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would require consensus elsewhere, I'm drafting up a proposed guideline for this at User:Crouch, Swale/England#Splits that might make more spits desirable but since there are only around 12 cases were a parish doesn't include its settlement that isn't a lot to merge back if for whatever reason consensus is even against these splits. Given that Worth was once a separate village from Crawley its likely that there will be enough content to have 2 articles anyway. On Commons the suburb is at Commons:Category:Worth, West Sussex with the CP at Commons:Category:Worth, Mid Sussex, I originally put the CP at "Worth, West Sussex (parish)" but I realized disambiguation by district would be sufficient. But until we get consensus I would not spit cases where the settlement and parish have the same name unless like Worth the parish excludes the settlement completely until we get consensus on that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Herefordshire populations

Hi, You've been doing some great work on places in Herefordshire. There's a useful site here on population, including an Excel sheet with history (1951-2011) by parish. I've added a link to an archived version of that sheet from Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography#Resources and added the ref to Lyonshall. --Cavrdg (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cavrdg: Many thanks for that... I'll give both a good look and use where I can. Best. Acabashi (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture articles

Just wanted to say that, although we disagree on Pevsner's "flowery and subjective language", I've greatly enjoyed your excellent church articles. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fishermen at Bognor Regis, West Sussex, by William Pankhurst Marsh

I am able to provide positive identifications of two of these fishermen in this postcard if anyone would like to know. The central man who is talking and everyone is looking at (the older man 2nd from the right with a pipe in his mouth) is William Hellyer born in Bognor on 26 Mar 1838. He was a fisherman who lived and worked his whole life in Bognor and had 9 children with his wife Isabella. About 1910 William posted a sign appealing to the residents of Bognor for donations to repair his fishing net which had been practically destroyed by Bottle Nosed sharks that had been caught in it. William Hellyer died in Bognor on 11 Aug 1921 having never remarried after his wife left in 1882.

The other fisherman I can positively identify is the man standing right beside William to the left of him. That is William's son Frederick Thomas Hellyer born in Bognor Dec 1876. He was also a fisherman from the age of 15 who lived and worked most of his life in Bognor. He was married twice and had 4 children. He died in Chichester, Sussex in Feb 1936.

These identifications were made by great grandchildren of William Hellyer and corroborated by other known photos of the two men as well.

Verge33 (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I have added your personal corroboration for anyone who would like to know to the file description. When I copy over my public domain historical images to Flickr, I'll add a tag for the persons named, which might be a help for family history research. Acabashi (talk) 10:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hatfield Forest

I write a monthly biography for family and friends of my wife's early American ancestors. One of those ancestors was Abraham Howe who was born in Hatfield Broad Oak near the Hatfield Forest. I found a photo you took of the forest and was wondering if I could have permission to insert it into the article. I don't charge anyone for my biographies and would of course acknowledge you as the photographer. I live in San Diego and have never been to England, so I am dependent upon the internet to bring more reality to my stories. I would be happy to provide you a copy of the article when I am done. Thank you for your consideration. If I don't hear from you in the next couple weeks, I will find another one to insert.

Dean Huseby husebydean@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CB00:4EE0:1D77:1DA0:C5D7:A8AE (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dean. Anything on Wikimedia Commons is free to use and adapt as long as the author/creator is credited, so you are free to use any of my photos for any purpose. Many thanks for your interest. There are photo pages for Hatfield Broad Oak and Hatfield Heath (parishes and settlements) that you might find useful. I don't know when your Abraham Howe existed in the parish, but up to some time in the 19th century the area that is now Hatfield Heath parish was part of Broad Oak, but became more populous and important than Broad Oak village as it was the natural centre for major local road crossings, fairs, markets and businesses, and became a parish in its own right. For Abraham Howe, a look at Hatfield Heath also might be a happy hunting ground, and certainly pics of Hatfield Heath locations that are historic might be pertinent. I am fairly local to Broad Oak and often find myself there, Bush End having been a centre for work, so if you have any locations, buildings etc that could be useful for your project, let me know and I'll see what I can do when I'm up there, eg: there might be church or churchyard memorials for your family. Acabashi (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging

Hi! I noticed your attempts to ping users (including me) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements‎‎ - it's on my watchlist. Pinging only works if you sign in the same edit as the ping, so we've not received one yet. Might be best to remove the post and start again. HTH, —SMALL JIM 13:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC) (not promising I'll take part in the discussion!)[reply]

Thanks for that. I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I'll give the link on each relevant users Talk, which perhaps might be better. Acabashi (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Knotweed

Hi, I would like to enquire if it is okay to use your photograph of Japanese Knotweed in an Irish booklet on Invasive Species. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Japanese_knotweed_Fallopia_japonica_at_Myddelton_House,_Enfield,_London,_England.jpg We would be delighted to include your name as photographer if you could provide it. Many thanks, JB — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBZoology (talk • contribs) 16:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JBZoology: Absolutely no probs. That's what photos on Wikimedia are here for. You could just say: © Acabashi, CC-BY-SA or Photo by Acabashi, CC-BY-SA and you're ready to go. If the booklet goes online or at Amazon I'd appreciate a link, and would be interested to read it. Many thanks for this. Acabashi (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTPEOPLE

Please note that WP:LISTPEOPLE is a section of WP:SAL which refers specifically to stand alone list articles on Wikipedia such as, for example, List of Hawkwind band members. Embedded lists such as those in an infobox or a List of band members section are outside of WP:SAL's scope and therefore outside WP:LISTPEOPLE's scope also. For what it's worth, what you are suggesting also runs contrary to WP:NNC.Romomusicfan (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should also advise you that your blanket accusation that the inclusion of all band members in band articles is motivated by "as is typical, a thinly veiled attempt at promotion spam" rather than a reasonable desire by contributors to be comprehensive and informative, could well be construed as contrary to WP:GOODFAITH. Romomusicfan (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators and help needed

Hi, if you are active on Wikipedia and are still interested in helping out with urgent tasks on our large Schools Project, please let us know here. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sent to project members 13:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC). You can opt of messages here.

Strathfield electoral district by-election 2022

Hey hi there - is there a way to add whether the candidates are residents or not? Of the 6 candidates, only 3 are local residents, which is unusual - here's the reference source, under locality:

https://www.elections.nsw.gov.au/Elections/State-government-elections/Strathfield-By-election/nominated-candidates

Many thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoalaAussieBlue (talk • contribs) 19:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Herefordshire parishes

Thank you for the new articles, were now down to 11 missing in Herefordshire and 389 in England. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks. I'm working through Herefordshire at my leisure, and will no doubt get through them in time, but only those that continue to be red-linked. As you may have noticed, I avoid polishing inadequate stubs and mini-starts, even though I can find loads on them. Thanks again for your appreciation. Acabashi (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 that are "blue" though redirects, see User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes (2)#Herefordshire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've put your useful page on my browser Speed Dial list. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Listed buildings images

At Grade I listed buildings in Essex there are some like Baythorne Hall, Fyfield Hall, Panfield Hall and Quendon Hall that don't have any images. Do you have/know of any images on Commons of these? Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Fatima Church, Harlow

Hi Acabashi - I notice you’re a prolific photographer in the North London area, with a fine recent collection of Harlow images. I’m very keen for some interior shots of Our Lady of Fatima Church, Harlow, in particular of the stained glass. Better exterior shots would also be very welcome. Should you find yourself in that neck of the woods again, your assistance would be greatly appreciated. All the best, KJP1 (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]