Adamblack93

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mousemill Bridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamilton. 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) 09:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

CSD tagging

Hi Aadamblack93, please review WP:CSD and familiarise yourself with the guidelines before you make any more speedy deletion nominations. Daniel G. George is a Medal of Honor winner in the American Civil war and the page, even in its current stub form does not even come close to warrant a speedy deletion nomination. The page easily passes notability guidelines. Moreover you cannot nominate a page for speedy deletion under A7 if there is a significant claim being made (in this case being a MOH winner). If you need any help, or have doubts about tagging certain articles, feel free to ask me on my talk page.  NQ  talk 07:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I understand that this is not an article that can be deleted through CSD, but I do intend on proposing this article through AFD. As I mentioned on the article's talk page, I don't feel that being in receipt of the medal of honor is sufficient for the subject to be notable. Thousands have won the medal and not every single person in receipt of the medal should be considered worthy of an entry in an encyclopedia. The article needs to clearly assert notability. --Adam Black ^{talk • contribs • uploads • logs} 07:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Medal of Honor recipients are considered notable by default here on Wikipedia. It's the nation's highest Military honor for valiant actions beyond the call of duty and as such establishes notability. By your logic, only some Medal of Honor winners are notable? If so, how would you define the criteria for inclusion ? NQ  talk 07:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I also contest the decision. The voluminous work on Victoria Cross and Knights Cross of the Iron Cross recipients et al should have already rendered this moot. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging

Adam, Leica Camera is a company that's had a major influence on photography in the approximately 160 years of its existence. Leice Camera employs 1300 people and until recently was listed on the stock market. With respect to major product releases, I don't think we have a notability problem. That said, I would encourage you to create more content instead of spending considerable time in drive-by tagging, which in my experience and conviction does not contribute to the project of building an encyclopedia in a significant way. Thanks. Samsara (FA • FP) 15:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You do realise that notability is not inherited? The fact that a manufacturer is notable does not mean its products are. And I am not "drive-by tagging" - I have been patrolling new pages, an important part of which is identifying any issues with the content. --Adam Black ^{talk • contribs • uploads • logs} 14:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Patrolling new pages for self-promotion and other nonsense is fine. But I wonder if you've ever analysed what happens to articles that you tag. Can you demonstrate that it has a positive impact, and how do you think you might be able to reduce the number of people that bring legitimate complaints about your behaviour? Samsara (FA • FP) 05:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I resent the assertion that the only reason I have been patrolling new pages is for "self-promotion and other nonsense". Patrolling new pages is vital to the project, as it identifies vandalism, unsuitable entries and ways in which the article can be improved. Every page I patrol is added to my watchlist, and I regularly return to them to check changes since the tagging. Of the new articles I patrolled and placed CSD tags on, all but one have been deleted under the criteria I tagged them with. Of those I tagged with maintenance templates, none have been seriosuly challenged (other than the one of Leica X2) although some have been removed but were later re-tagged. As far as I am aware, however, none of the articles I added maintenance tags to have been improved sufficiently for those tags to be removed. I suggest you learn to work with other people and speak to them with civility as Wikipedia is a group project. Accusing others' work of being useless to the project is not helpful in any way. I respectfully request that you do not post on my talk page again if you are merely going to insult me. --Adam Black ^{talk • contribs • uploads • logs} 01:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Adam, If I may pitch in, I believe what Samsara meant was that it is indeed fine to patrol new pages for the purpose of identifying articles that are created for the explicit purpose of self-promotion (CSD#G11) and other nonsense, and nominate them for speedy deletion; not that the reason you were doing so was for "self-promotion and other nonsense".  NQ  talk 01:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Cavern airfield

Hello, thank you for your work at this article, unfortunatly it is now nominatet for deletion. It woould be nice if you can have a look at this and probably vote to keep it. discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cavern airfield is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cavern airfield until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Thank you FFA P-16 (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Lanark constituency move

Hello Adamblack,

Your move of the Lanark constituency contradicts official Wikipedia policy. Please see here and the very recent discussion here.

I will try to fathom how to undo your move, but I needed to let you know. Cheers

doktorb _words^deeds 08:51, 26 August 2014 (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) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC - scope and title for the American Revolutionary War article

I am forwarding this RfC notice to you, along with the ongoing Discussion Summary Chart because you are listed as a British Empire Project member interested in colonial or military history. The RfC and discussion is found at Talk:American Revolutionary War. Please feel free to delete this notice if it does not fit your current interests. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for value. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Which title best defines the SCOPE for the American Revolutionary War?
discussion summarized by TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

A. "American Revolutionary War”

B. "War of the American Revolution"

continuity - used at this WP article and sister articles for 19 years - scope - British-American insurrection in continental North America - participants British & US Congress with respective allies, auxiliaries & combatants - war aims -- Brit: maintain First British Empire with mercantile system -- US: independence, British evacuation, territory to Mississippi-navigation, Newfoundland Banks - fish & cure - results - US independence & republic; Britain the biggest US trade partner & finances US expanding business & Treasury - reliable scholarly reference Britannica for the general reader - prominent adherents - all 15 history Pulitzer winner scholars on the topic

modern update - uses 'vast majority of sources' found in a browser search - scope - British-American insurrection in continental North America, spread to Anglo-Bourbon (Fr.&Sp.) War-across worldwide empires, Fourth Anglo-Dutch War-North Atlantic, Second Mysore War-Indian subcontinent & Ocean - participants British & US Congress, France, Spain, Dutch Republic, Kingdom of Mysore - war aims -- Brit: maintain First British Empire with mercantile system -- US independence, British evacuation, territory to Mississippi-navigation, Newfoundland Banks - fish & cure -- Bourbons: Gibraltar, Jamaica, Majorca, expand Gambia trade, expand India trade -- Dutch - free trade with North America & Caribbean -- Mysore wider east-Indian sub-continent sphere of influenced results - Second British Empire, Spanish Majorca, French Gambia, further decline of Dutch Republic - reliable scholarly reference [world military dictionary] for the military specialist - prominent adherents - Michael Clodfelter, more to follow