User talk:Adam Black GB

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disambiguation link notification for May 4[edit]

Discussion closed. Adam Black talk • contributions 21:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert H. Adleman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ashland. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Task complete. disambiguation link replaced --Adam Black talk • contributions 15:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metal-Head[edit]

Discussion closed. Adam Black talk • contributions 21:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Just look at this thing. Does this look notable to you? 2605:B40:13E7:F600:F01B:2293:64B4:C2BD (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the article, it's edit history, talk page and the article's sources and agree with you that it does not appear notable, but it has been tagged and previous discussions did not reach a consensus. Blanking and redirecting is not the way to go about this - I would suggest an AfD but not unilateral conversion to a redirect. Adam Black talk • contributions 23:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to WP:BEBOLD for what it's worth. I'll see what happens. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:F01B:2293:64B4:C2BD (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have been told many times not to do this. "Being bold" is not an excuse anymore. Toughpigs (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Toughpigs. I was just about to say that. I have gone ahead and opened an AfD for the article. Feel free to discuss this matter there, but please do not unilaterally blank the article again. Adam Black talk • contributions 23:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This IP-hopping user has been repeatedly BLARring articles, sometimes even edit-warring over it, and was even blocked for it. BOZ (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Marie-Thérèse Kaiser[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Marie-Thérèse Kaiser, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Task complete. By @Wanted, thank you!. Adam Black talk • contributions 20:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Discussion closed. Adam Black talk • contributions 21:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for your anti-vandalism work! Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 20:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much @Myrealnamm. This is really appreciated. Adam Black talk • contributions 20:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The World Ends With You[edit]

Discussion closed. Adam Black talk • contributions 21:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why are you reverting my edits? I explained exactly why I removed the table, and it wasn't just because of IMDB. You're restoring bad information I tried to remove, claiming my doing so was "vandalism", which it very much was not. -- 68.36.180.44 (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on your talk page. Adam Black talk • contributions 04:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

replying[edit]

There's a lot to unpack on this lot. Bear with me please.(removed potential issues section)

There is a lot to explain at at some point, please take care, as much as it looks easy, there are a lot more traps and issues than might seem apparent at this stage. Please check carefully. Thanks. JarrahTree 02:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree, thanks! This is all quite useful and interesting information and you've given me plenty to consider. I am from Scotland, but I've always had an interest in Australia. My brother-in-law is an Aussie and I think I've bored him to death talking about his homeland so I decided to bring my interest to Wikipedia. I can research Australian history and contribute, plus give my brother-in-law a break.
I hope I can contribute at least some more stub articles, and maybe flesh out those I can properly source. I don't have the time to dedicate to such a project that User:RenegadeStormie and User:Madradish had, but I'd like to do what I can. I've just finished writing another article, South Western Advertiser, and plan to write a few more before I start back at work next week (I'm on an extended holiday at the moment). I'll still be contributing in my time off, I just won't be able to do as much.
One of the problems I'm coming across already is the difficulty of finding sources for newspaper articles. Not many newspapers seem to discuss each other, and the names can make searching for them difficult. Like "South Western Advertiser" - the vast majority of results on Google and Trove are for advertisements. Hopefully that's something that will get easier the more I do it. Adam Black talk • contributions 02:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your last point is a real stickler at times, though there are gems - where newspapers do have a go at each other (Kalgoorlie a good place for that) or they carry stories from the others. It never gets easier by the way. JarrahTree 02:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish my country had a similar project. There are some great examples of the local papers here having a go at each other but you have to go to the local library and sift through microfiche to read them. I get what you're saying. I've tried to improve a few articles and already it's been a bit of a nightmare trying to find anything reliable. Adam Black talk • contributions 02:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking that if you are relying on such limited scope items as oggle (I do not like typing the real name) and avoid Trove and Liswa, of course you wont find anything of substance, that is the way of things JarrahTree 15:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do use Google to find more information on the articles I expand, but only after I've had a thorough search through Trove. For example, the recent articles I've expanded upon (Nat Harper, John Marquis Hopkins and Harry Bolton) do use mostly Trove articles as the sources. I haven't heard of Liswa, though. Can you give me a link to have a look at it? Adam Black talk • contributions 16:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sigh[edit]

It could have been very useful to have had a conversation about a few things, but clearly you have taken it and run with it. It would have been more useful from the perspective from on site access to the archives, to have provided further context, but it's too late now. It is very weird seeing 1,000 edits, 5 years and the level of sophistication of editing, very disconnect stuff, and then the announcement as a personal project stuff, I'll leave you to it, as it is now in the realm of the flys and fly-bys - as https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Western_Australia - a very fickle and probably disinterested in newspaper crew to date... also in the old days there was a much stronger sense of a collaborative process, your announcement sort of has left that context a bit, whatever. Enjoy... JarrahTree 17:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree Sorry, it wasn't meant to come across as an announcement, more a general call for help and letting all the WikiProject members know what I'd already done. In fact, I did post to the WikiProject talk page to also illicit some discussion about the subject. I've been being bold in restructuring the newspaper categories and creating articles, but that's not to say it's in any way meant to be a solo project.
I had noticed discussion on the Western Australia WikiProject page had very little engagement, compared to some other projects, and so I thought it'd be better to be bold and ask for feedback.
I have mild autism and sometimes struggle to communicate effectively. I've been told before I come across as rude and abrasive and this is far from how I mean to be. I am just quite matter-of-fact and apologise if it came across as me taking over. I would love to collaborate, that's why I posted my latest post.
In terms of my edits and "sophistication", I have had other accounts on Wikipedia before (see the disclaimer on my User page), and besides that I own a small web hosting company which routinely uses MediaWiki. I have a lot of experience with both the software that runs Wikipedia and with Wikipedia itself. Much more so than my edit history would suggest.
Again, I apologise for any offense caused by my post and I sincerely hope we can work together on this. Adam Black talk • contributions 17:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, I'm on and off, here and there at the moment ̴̴ JarrahTree 08:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wow you are in it deep! from low to go go - thanks for your improvements to the wa project - take care !!! JarrahTree 14:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However - I do think that it would have been worth (once again too late...) to have run the changing names of locations in the state - like the be bold stuff of times gone by - past the west oz somnolent talk page as a matter of courtesy. There is a nuanced point where 'outsiders' coming into the territory determining the disambig process for oz names does not occur that much in the oz project in general - but there was a really good argument against reducing the qualifier of a state name, that was at hand some time back where broadscale reducing names via the 'primacy' of goggle hits was really on the nose. There it was, I have mislaid the memory and link for the argument - but again, you have done your bit, please make an effort to drop the next surprise at the wa project talk page, not that anyone will respond, but the effort would be appreciated. cheers JarrahTree 15:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was interpreting WP:NCAUS, which is specifically for Australian place names so I assumed had some involvement from WikiProject Australia at least, as meaning Australian place names where there seems to be no risk of confusion with any other place (Pingelly, for example, I can't find any other settlements by this name) don't need the state qualifier. I was going to request more page moves to comply with the naming conventions policy as I spot them, but I'll bring it up at the WA talk page before I go ahead with the next one.
I am focusing on the Wheatbelt region at the moment - I'm going to come back to the newspapers soon, but at the moment I'm expanding articles on politicians and then will be moving on to trying to expand the histories of some Wheatbelt settlements. I thought using the newspapers on Trove for research into individuals and places first, rather than the newspapers themselves, would be more productive than starting with the newspapers - my thinking being that I'll understand the newspapers better having read them instead of just looking for articles about them. If you have any suggestions for articles you'd recommend I research next, though, I'd welcome them. At the moment I've just been wandering around stumbling on articles I can improve, it'd be good to have some suggestions from someone actually from WA as to what's needing done. I've looked at the to-do list on the WA project page but all of the suggestions seem more modern, stuff I'm unlikely to find on Trove. Adam Black talk • contributions 16:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The big problem of being there - and not here, it is very easy to be fooled by things that are otherwise ignored or suitably annotated but not utilized in practice.
The more I look at the unnecessary disambiguation, the dangerous precedent is that tens of thousands of Australian place names are up for the same, not just your random scattering. I would not encourage any further simply on the basis that unless there was a really serious life or death situation that required such a change, it seems like a really vast and terrible waste of time and effort on the basis of an idea that looked good at the time (NCAUS was an aspiration not a reality if you check the contrary in lists of places in each state of Australia). As for suggestions (the to-do list at WA project for instance) there are more holes than there are in Cappadocia in the whole Australian project and neither the time or editors to even fix a few - the actual on the ground understanding and practices can be very different from aspirational statements.
The arguments in the oz project from 15 years ago are just that. They were not as hard and fast as what eventuated over time. Too many people have moved on, disappeared or remain indifferent to what seemed important back then. If you look at red links in any state of oz places, they are always worth doing... ̴ JarrahTree 03:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juan de Oñate[edit]

I am surprised by the aggressiveness with which Adam Black has reacted to the my clarification of his article on Juan de Oñate. It would be good if he knew the reality of the viceroyalty period, erroneously called colonial, which is a very common perspective when Anglo-Saxon or Central European writers or historians describe a reality foreign to their own with their own standards. My clarifications are also due to the doubts that exist about the Acoma massacre. There are doubts about the number of people, since la mesa where the Acoma lived could not have held so many people, and there is talk of 1000 dead and 500 survivors, when there must have been between 400-500 living on the mesa. Also the fact that Oñate had only 120 soldiers on the expedition in 1598, of which 11 were killed, which would mean that he would have used all his strength, which is implausible because he had to protect the settlers who arrived at San Juan de los Caballeros. The figures are not very credible, as Al Borrego, historian of the Camino Real de Tierra adentro and descendant of Geronimo, also states. Perhaps it is the vandalism of those who write without being absolutely certain about it. Cárdenas1868 (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cárdenas1868, I have reviewed your edits at Juan de Oñate. Please note that I have never edited this article before and so it is not "my" article.
The following edits were reverted by ClueBot NG (talk · contribs), an automated anti-vandalism bot:
These edits resulted in the following changes to the article:
  • changed "colonial México" to "actual México"
  • changed the sentence "In an Ascension Day ceremony, Oñate led the party in prayer, as he claimed all of the territory across the river for the Spanish Empire." to "In an Ascension Day ceremony, Oñate led the party in prayer, as he claimed all of the territory across the river for the Spanish Empire and his speech of La Toma he said "I take peacefully the land...in preservation of them and us".
I would have reverted this change myself, and so I agree with the actions of ClueBot NG. Both changes require verifiability, i.e. require in-line citations. Quotations ascribed to an individual, particularly, must be backed up with a reliable (preferably secondary) source.
After reverting your edit, ClueBot NG left a level 1 warning on your talk page.
I reverted the following edit:
This edit resulted in the following change to the article:
  • changed "An estimated 800–1,000 Ácoma died in the siege of the pueblo. Much later, when King Philip III of Spain heard the news of the massacre, [...]" to "An estimated 800–1,000 Ácoma died in the siege of the pueblo. But these dates are questionable because Oñate don't bring many soldiers in the expedition Much later, when King Philip III of Spain heard the news of the massacre, [...]"
This added sentence was written poorly and incorrectly formatted. I assume that the sentence was not supposed to be italicised. The standard of English was not sufficient for this edition of Wikipedia. For example, "[...] in the siege of the pueblo, but these dates are questionable because Oñate did not bring many soldiers with the expedition. Much later, [...]" may have been a better option, and I may not have reverted the edit in this case. However, this content should also have been cited.
In all honesty, I do not remember these particular edits and so cannot say exactly why I left you a level 2 warning, but I am assuming that I noticed the improper formatting, poor standard of English, and that you had already been reverted and warned by ClueBot NG prior to your latest edit and so decided that a second warning was necessary.
I note that in the case of all four of your edits, you did not include an edit summary. In future, please use the edit summary box to explain why you have made the edits you have. Although it is possible your edits may still be reverted by other editors, they are much less likely to be considered vandalism if you include an edit summary.
I would like to point out that my reversion concerned Wikipedia policies, and not historical accuracy. As a historian, I am sure you will be familiar with citing sources but if you need help with citing sources on Wikipedia I am happy to help, and there are plenty of other sources of assistance such as the Teahouse.
For more information on the relevant Wikipedia policies, please see WP:VERIFY, WP:MOS and WP:EDITSUMMARY. Adam Black talk • contributions 21:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your relist at CfD[edit]

I noticed you relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 15#Category:Rātana politicians. CfD discussions are almost never relisted more than twice, because it's unlikely there will be any further discussion. Would you consider reverting your relist? — Qwerfjkltalk 16:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl I was not aware of that. I read through the full WP:CFD page but didn't go to the page about relisting. I expected all the information I would need would be on the page. I was just trying to help with what seemed like a backlog - several CFDs with no "votes" which seemed to need relisted. I'm not sure how to revert this. Could you let me know how to, or would it be appropriate to just close it as no consensus despite the relisting? Adam Black talk • contributions 16:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can revert the relist for you - normally I just undo the appropriate edits in user contributions.
The dicussion should probably not be closed as no consensus, it looks like there is consensus, but I haven't fully looked over the discussion.
There is quite a large backlog at CfD, and I appreciate your help, but I would encourage you attempt easier closes first - most of the open discussions are fairly hard to close (which is why they've been left).
I wrote an essay on closing CfDs, User:Qwerfjkl/How to close CfD discussions, which you might find helpful - it's still a work in process and only reflects my own views, so take what you read with a grain of salt.
Happy editing! — Qwerfjkltalk 16:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help! I'll give this a read and leave closing CfDs for now (maybe a week or so) until I have a chance to see the results of more CfDs. Adam Black talk • contributions 16:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 16[edit]

Discussion closed. Adam Black talk • contributions 21:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Leonard Bolton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Franklin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Adam Black talk • contributions 18:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Aaliyah Samuel[edit]

Hello, Adam Black,

Please review WP:G13 so you understand the CSD G13 criteria better. It has to be six months since the draft was last edited by a human editor for a draft to be eligible for G13. This draft was edited in December 29, 2023 which was not 6 months ago. Today, we are deleting expiring drafts that were last edited on November 18, 2023. And now that this draft has been edited, we need to wait another six months before it is eligible for CSD G13 again. So, please do not tag drafts before they are eligible for G13, it just postpones their deletion for another half a year. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Apologies for the mistake. I came across the draft in an unrelated search and it seemed like a candidate for deletion because the last edit only moved the ref tags after the periods. I will re-read all of the CSD criteria. Adam Black talk • contributions 23:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion[edit]

The Zen Garden Award Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
For your grace in responding calmly in the ANI discussion in response to an admin reply that seemed far more sniping than it needed to be or was appropriate, I offer you this Zen Garden. TJRC (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I really don't understand why your initiation of the discussion got the hostility it received. It just seems unseemly to jump on an editor legitimately seeking help on a problem, instead of politely pointing them to the right process.

I've been editing Wikipedia for almost two decades, and I certainly don't know all the admin-related details; most editors don't, we primarily edit, and only reach out for help when we see problems that we cannot ourselves resolve. A better response would have been just to tell you the right administrative procedure instead of criticizing you attempt to get help and grilling you about procedural niceties.

By the way, on the enquiry/inquiry thing: I think that's the one English variation change that may have been made correctly. As I understand it, "inquiry" is the American spelling (I'm an American, and that is how I would expect it to be spelled; "enquiry" is the British spelling (or "a" British spelling?); so changing "inquiry" to "enquiry" in an article about a British nurse may be appropriate per WP:TIES.

On the other hand, if both are acceptable in British English (and here I am outside my expertise), then "inquiry" would be preferred as satisfying both variants, per WP:COMMONALITY. TJRC (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TJRC Thank you very much for this. I've edited Wikipedia for almost two decades as well (under other usernames, but never at the same time - I've listed my former usernames on my userpage) and one of the main reasons I stop for years at a time is the bureaucracy and incivility that can be commonplace. That and real life being more important. I came back because I genuinely think I can help improve Wikipedia and I'm trying my best not to let the negative aspects of being here get to me.
On the enquiry/inquiry thing, we use both in British English but with slightly different meanings. I might enquire about the availability of a book in a library or call directory enquiries to find a phone number for example, but the Government holds an inquiry into an event. The Government always calls its fact finding exercises inquiries (e.g. the Leveson Inquiry, the UK COVID-19 Inquiry and the Penrose Inquiry). To be honest I have no idea why we use the different terms, but then I also have no idea why we still put a dottering old man on our currency and stamps and spend millions of pounds on pomp and ceremony when our citizens can't all afford food, heat and shelter.
Thanks again. It's always nice to come across helpful and pleasant people on Wikipedia when all too often you're confronted with the opposite. Adam Black talk • contributions 12:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adam_Black_GB&oldid=1224731350"