User talk:Adam Black

Hello

I came here from the RFA, I do not want to carry on there if that is ok. Regarding your message on the RFA talk page, I notice many RFA candidates delete their user pages or remove information. When someone starts here they are excited and they overshare. Then they decide they want to be an admin and they realize that declarations about religion, sexuality and medical issues will influence voters. Even I deleted my user page.
Savvy editors are able to see historical snapshots of a user page so erasure is futile. A userbox can be a virtue signal and can give insight into an editor's motivations. In the past there have been userbox controversies. You said the hobbies question does not "add much to the RfA process, but [is] quite harmless." And I think that is why it is allowed. Hope you have a great weekend. Lightburst (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your level-headed contribution

I feel like that discussion is already overburdened, so I’ll try for it here:

I think notifying two ‘western’ countries (likely the US (?) and Germany), would effectively address the balance issue. I estimate (based on gut feeling) that Christianity is about neutral, Judaism and Islam are biased about how one of would expect them to be, and Arab and SA remain as ‘problematic’ notifications.

I would therefore choose Germany and the USA due to their link to the country of Israel, my expectations of their bias being about opposite of the countries notified, and their perception on the international stage. Would you consider that unreasonable? FortunateSons (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with you that notifying WT:WikiProject Arab world is particularly problematic, as my understanding is most Palestinians consider themselves Arab. Again I'd say it was overzealous, just notifying WT:WikiProject Palestine would have sufficed. The link with WT:WikiProject South Africa, though, is tenuous at best and a notification was unnecessary, perhaps bordering on inappropriate. As was pointed out, there is a section on South Africa's comments on the Israel and apartheid article but I don't think that's enough of a justification.

I don't think notifying any more projects is going to do much good and I think you'd be running the risk of being accused of canvassing notifying the US and Germany projects, rather than addressing bias and balance issues. Those would definitely be tenuously linked to the subject. Any good closer is going to balance the weight of arguments based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, rather than sheer volume of support so bias shouldn't really be an issue. Remember, Wikipedia isn't a democracy so decisions aren't made solely on the basis of how many people !vote on any given matter.

I think you're definitely right to want to balance both sides of the argument, but in this case I think the best move might be to just leave it at that and assume the next closer acts reasonably. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 18:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

That does make sense.

I know I should probably just trust the next closer, but it (irrationally) feels like it guarantees that the outcome of an RfC will at least be altered by the unbalanced views of those notified.

Thank you for taking the time, I appreciate your patience :) FortunateSons (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I try my best to be as impartial as I can when it comes to Israel and Palestine. One of my closest friends is from Israel and my ex is a Muslim with very strong opinions on the matter so I've had a lot of experience sitting in the middle of tense debates.

On an unrelated note, I was going to mention to you that the diff links you've been posting (such as at your AE report) point to the mobile site. Nothing wrong with that inherently, but some editors on the desktop site find it annoying; en.wikipedia.org links automatically go to en.m.wikipedia.org on mobile browsers, but en.m.wikipedia.org links don't automatically redirect to en.wikipedia.org on desktop browsers. Personally, I just find it mildly distracting but I've noticed some really don't like it. You might want to use the {{diff2}} template instead. It uses the edit ID and produced a link that looks like a wikilink instead of an external link:

• {{diff2|edit ID}} or {{diff2|edit ID|description}}
• {{diff2|1227099021}} → [1]
• {{diff2|1227099021|your last edit}} → your last edit

Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 18:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I have experienced some of those debates myself (and negatively contributed to them as well), so I empathise with the desire to be an impartial voice, and believe that you are succeeding.

Regarding the edits: you’re right, mobile diffs are definitely not ideal, and you’re not the first person to remind me of this, so mea culpa.

So for the future, just using the {{diff2|random number}} would fix it? The number is identical, no matter what device I use? FortunateSons (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the number is identical on desktop and mobile. Each edit is given an ID by the MediaWiki software to uniquely identify it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=1225315602 is the diff for the latest edit to the main page and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=1225315602 is tied to the same edit. Because it's a unique ID you can actually put anything you like into title and the database will return the correct diff, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Random_page&diff=prev&oldid=1225315602 or omit the title altogether, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1225315602 Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 18:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that’s quite interesting.

Thank you for the computer science crash course, I will try to do it properly in the future. FortunateSons (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Links to the mobile site are still valid diff links, and it only takes a few clicks/key strokes to get back to the desktop site. I just brought it up because I've seen it does inexplicably bother some editors. Editing on mobile browsers can be quite fiddly and time consuming so if it's going to take you significantly longer to use the diff2 template I'd say don't waste your time. The more time spent on pernickety issues like this, the less time spent making other useful contributions. But it's there as an option. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 19:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It’s definitely productive advice. While it will take more time (as you accurately described mobile editing), there are good use cases were being easier to deal with is beneficial in the topic area. Thank you. FortunateSons (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for being a great user! :D

Wiiformii (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 17:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Rembrandt on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Adam Black. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [Rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision - that's all. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
• Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Fastily 06:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Robert Adams article

Hi Adam Black, I have written a bit on the Robert Adam talk page. I have provided well cited material and have not even removed the inane material others have left. I do not want to engage in an edit war. No one talks to me on the talk page except people that agree with me, so what do I do next?

Robert Adams real name is Robert Spiegel. I have newspaper links, birth certificate, marriage license, and pictures of him using the name Robert Spiegel. Anytime I put that up it is immediately removed in favor of inane stuff. What do I mean by inane stuff. This: "All of a sudden hundreds of bodhisattvas and mahasattvas came out of the forest and sat down in a semi-circle around Adams as the Buddha." And "Adams as the Buddha, gave the bodhisattvas and mahasattvas four principles,..."

This stuff is presented as factual material yet if I present some of the well documented pictures and articles of him posing as Dr. J. Robert Spiegel (his real name but he wasn't a Dr.) or material related to his actual past such as working as a hypnotist, and Science of Mind speaker or his daughter who controls his foundation ... it is immediately removed and I am threatened with a ban. What do you recommend? Welcome650 (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I will take a look at this soon and get back to you. I'm working on something at the moment but I should have time tonight. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 18:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to get back to you last night but it slipped my mind. I've taken a look through the article and it seems to be littered with problems so I will add it to my list of articles to work on.

The newspaper articles may be usable, but the problem is connecting them to Robert Adams. For example, it is possible for two people to look very similar so just having a picture attributed to Robert Spiegel wouldn't be sufficient. We also tend not to use birth and marriage certificates as references, and it is entirely possible for a Robert Spiegel to have been born on the same day, in the same place as a Robert Adams. What would be best is if you could find a reliable source which uses both names, something along the lines of Robert Adams, formerly known as Robert Spiegel, ..." or Robert Spiegel, who also goes by Robert Adams, ...". One thing I can think of is perhaps an obituary might have made the connection (an independently written one, one placed in a newspaper by family may not be considered reliable). Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 12:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I too have gotten a little busy. Off the top of my head, I am not sure it is possible to write a definitive Wikipedia article saying Robert Adams was Robert Spiegel.

We do have mainstream news citations from WRAL, The Fayetteville Observer and other valid citation sources that:

1. Leonie Maxwell also went by the name of Nicole Adams and was married to Robert Spiegel.

2. Robert Adams had a wife named Nicole Adams.

3. Leonie Maxwell ran the Robert Adams' Infinity Institute along with her daughter Michelle b.1961.

4. Robert Adams had a daughter Michelle b.1961.

5. Robert Spiegel had a daughter born 1957 named Sharon.

6. Robert Adams had a daughter born 1957 named Sharon.

An invalid to Wikipedia citation though nonetheless interesting is: Ai finds a 100% certainty that the Robert Spiegel picture is the same person as the Robert Adams picture.

Most likely this material should go up in a "Controversy" section. Also, I don't think the Robert Spiegel picture should be removed since most find it easily recognizable as Robert Adams even if it's just in a "Controversy" section.

. Welcome650 (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

On King (Tekken) popularity and proper citation

Dear Adam Black.

Thank you so much for your comment and your patience with me. I am indeed new at editing and helping with the Wikipedia effort and I may have committed a blunder with the citations and sources. I have read how to source information and I have some follow up information. I wanted you to give me advice on how to proceed or if its valid information. First, I have a tweet from Katsuhiro Harada (Tekken Creator) stating that King is the most popular Tekken Character in Japan. Second, I have an extract from an IGN (which is considered a reliable source) mentioning that "Some franchise's more iconic characters even live on outside their individual games, like Soulcalibur's Ivy and Tekken's King." How should I proceed with this newly obtained information?

Thank you so much for your time and patience.

[2]https://www.ign.com/articles/which-fighting-game-franchise-has-the-most-iconic-characters[3]https://twitter.com/Harada_TEKKEN/status/1386832503898480640 131.155.235.187 (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Twitter posts in general should not be used as a reference in articles, preference should always be given to reliable secondary sources.

The IGN article would probably not be considered a source for the King (Tekken) article because it makes only a single passing reference to the character.

The links below can help you find reliable sources related to the article:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 10:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Lickey D-Man Tarr Dah

Several of the images you complained of contain copyrighted video game content, so cannot be uploaded and released on Commons as free content. The rest of Lickey's images are also being put up for deletion, but I'm not sure how successful those efforts will be. It's a sort of commentary on the state of our civilization, though, isn't it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Given their response to my message on their talk page, Good luck getting me to remove anything off my page, I doubt they're going to realise that multiple (four so far, as far as I can see) editors have a problem with the content and that they were in the wrong. I honestly don't understand why anyone feels the need to be so unnecessarily offensive towards others in any forum, let alone on a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 04:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Tziporah Malkah Judaism

Dear Adam Black,

Thank you so much for your guidance, I very much appreciate it.

In regards to my Jewish family, below is a quote from an article plus the link to the full piece. It was published in 2018.

Thank you so much,

Tziporah Malkah

"The name Tziporah Malkah embraces her family’s Jewish heritage, despite a more secular upbringing. It’s inspired by her grandmother’s name, Tziporah meaning ‘bird’ or ‘beauty’ in Hebrew, Malkah meaning ‘queen’."

https://neighbourhoodpaper.com/features/waking-up-as-someone-else-how-kate-fischer-became-tziporah-malkah/ TziTziWombat (talk) 08:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in the June 2024 backlog drive! You scored 239 points while adding citations to articles during WikiProject Reliability's first {{citation needed}} backlog drive, earning you this citation barnstar. Thanks for helping out!

Pichpich (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Reminder: GA backlog drive

Hello! Just a reminder that, if you have time, you are welcome to join the GA backlog drive; it runs until the end of July. You are receiving this message because you signed up on the drive page but have not yet listed any reviews. We hope to see you there! Either way, happy editing! —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers, Talk:Anti-Defamation League, Talk:List of undefeated mixed martial artists and Talk:MJ the Musical on "All RFCs" request for comments. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sahaja Yoga on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Keep local on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Notifying Other Editors at DRN

In the future, if a filing editor fails to notify the other editors that they have filed a DRN request, please do not notify the other editors. If the filing editor either doesn't pay attention to the reminder to notify the other editor, or doesn't at least ask how to provide that notice, they probably are not likely to be able to discuss the content dispute usefully. I am not saying that you made a mistake when you notified one editor, but only asking please don't try to do them that for them in the future. If they don't at least know how to ask, they aren't ready to discuss. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Volunteering#Summary. Specifically, point 3:

Confirm that each participant listed in the case has been notified on their user talk page. If not, then you can manually add this template to their talk page: {{subst:Template:DRN-notice}}.

I was following the procedure outlined in the instructions for volunteers. If this is no longer how cases should be handled, this page should have been updated. Otherwise, you are directly asking me to go against the advice for volunteers.

I would also like to note that I found your message highly patronising. As far as I could tell from the available evidence, I was doing the correct thing. Additionally, I don't think your attitude in this regard is very helpful. Surely we should be trying to encourage participation in dispute resolution as far as possible, not locking someone out of the process because they don't fully understand it. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 19:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Twitter on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to Meetup, 15 November 2024

Adelaide Meetup Next: 15 November 2024 Last: 6 March 2020

You are cordially invited to this meetup to:

• discuss the WikiCon Australia 2024 event to be held in Adelaide on 23 November 2024, which involves the setting up of a GLAM collaboration between Wikimedia Australia and the South Australian Museum, and, possibly later, other local GLAM institutions
• discuss means of recruitment/mentoring/training of new editors, and the possibility of holding more regular meetups in Adelaide.

Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

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) 00:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)