User talk:Adam Black GB

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

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)

 Task complete. disambiguation link replaced --Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 15:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Metal-Head

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

CS1 error on Marie-Thérèse Kaiser

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)

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your anti-vandalism work! Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 20:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Myrealnamm. This is really appreciated. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 20:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The World Ends With You

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)

I have responded on your talk page. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 04:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

replying

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)

@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)

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)

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)

sigh

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)

@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)

Whatever, I'm on and off, here and there at the moment ̴̴ JarrahTree 08:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Juan de Oñate

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)

@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:

• 01:38, 10 May 2024
• 01:39, 10 May 2024
• 01:49, 10 May 2024

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:

• 01:58, 10 May 2024

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)

Your relist at CfD

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)

@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)

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)

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)