User talk:William Macadam

Hello, William Macadam, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —EncMstr (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

I appreciate your message on my talk page and have corrected the style. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort so please feel free to correct anything you know to be inaccurate. Kind regards, Trillig (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You used the {{Help me}} tag but did not ask a question. Please write out your question and replace the {{Help me}} tag when you are done, and someone will be along to help. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join the #wikipedia-en-help IRC help channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access.

Help me with...

William Macadam (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi William, I see with your last edit you tried to add an image to your article. Have you read the introduction to uploading images? It should help :) Samwalton9 (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ivison Macadam may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [the British delegation under the chairmanship of Lord Lothian included] TGWU leader Earnest Bevin {later British Foreign Minister in the post-WWII Attlee Labour government], Labour MP James Walker, General Burnett Stuart, Admiral Kelly, Geoffrey Vickers, the educationist

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC) Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to First National Bank Building (Portland, Oregon) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.[reply]

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• its earlier quarters and when it was subsequently under the ownership of H.W.Corbett’s grandsons).

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Corbett-Failing houses.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:FrontSt.Portland1852.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

talk:The Image was provided to me for the Henry W. Corbett page, available for public use, by the Oregon History Society by Geoff Wexler, Head of Archives there in their Portland Oregon Society and Museum building. I have e-mailed him to ask him if there is any further identification that might help. They are a highly reputable institution and publisher of books illustrated with photographs, the Oregon Historical Quarterly etc., so you can rest assured that they are very familiar with copyright matters and it does not infringe any copyright. The photo was taken over 150 years ago in 1852 (Any photograph taken before 1923 is in the public domain).

talk:Hope these answers your query. Geoff Wexler of the Oregon Historical Society responded to me re. your query "Here’s the identification of the photograph. The photographer is unidentified. It came from us. Any photograph taken before 1923 is in the public domain (this was taken in 1852). (from Geoff Wexler,Library Director,The Oregon Historical Society,1200 SW Park Ave., Portland, OR, 97205)

Hi, William, you are replying to a ""'bot", an automated process on Wikipedia so you probably won't get a reply. I'm not very good with images and copyright issues, but if you ask for help at WikiProject Oregon someone should be glad to help. These images are great additions to the project. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there William, I'm from WikiProject Oregon and I'm here to try to help you with these image issues. Hopefully I saved the photo of Front Street. I found it online in an OHS search. That photographer must have died more than 100 years ago. For the photo File:Corbett-Failing houses.jpg, do you know if it could be found online, as that may help determine the copyright status? Jsayre64 (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon . You received this invitation because of your history editing Oregon articles or discussion of Oregon topics. The Oregon WikiProject group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants. New members may read about existing members and introduce themselves here.

Valfontis (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[[William Macadamtalk. Thankyou very much. I don't live in Portland or Oregon, although love it there. Fantastic state and people. May I look into this in few weeks?

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ivison Macadam, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Kelly and James Walker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there someplace near Portland or online where I can verify the information you added to Henry W. Corbett? —EncMstr (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay in replying. I had forgotten how to do so but hope this works and reaches you. There is possibly a copy already in the Henry W. Corbett papers or his family files at the Oregon Historical Society (OHS) but when researching the files there I did not come across it. The letter has come to me from the Elliott R. Corbett papers, Henry W. Corbett's grandson and son of Henry J. Corbett to whom it was addressed, who predeceased his father Henry W. Corbett. I am sending a copy to Geoff Wexler, Head Librarian at the OHS Archives and once he advises me in which source file it is placed in I will add that to the reference for scholars access in Portland, Oregon. Thank you for carefully monitoring this. I do appreciate that after the very exhaustive research I undertook for the posting of the Henry W. Corbett article for Wikipedia to which i have now added the letter.

BTW the photographs that are connected to the Henry W. Corbett article can be placed in Wikipedia Commons with reference to the OHS or in one case in the stage Line posters to Dale Forster. Do I need to do that and if so can you remind me how I change those for permitted public use? They are out of copyright but OHS would like to be sourced on them. I am a bit swamped at the moment but will try and get around to that in due course if it requires my doing so. (William Macadam (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. Entering the papers at OHS would be a great step.

Maybe things have changed, but historically OHS maintained copyright of its materials such that we were not free to put them on Wikimedia commons. A few years ago, someone from WP:ORE made an attempt to persuade them to relax their stance, but I don't recall learning if that went anywhere. —EncMstr (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Henry W. Corbett papers are at the OHS and the various books quoted as sources could not have been written without their archives this letter will just be adding to them and perhaps the various additional document. I will double check with Geoff Wexler about the use of the photos but when he sent me them for uploading in Henry W. Corbett piece he said they would be happy to have them for public use but would appreciate an OHS credit. They are out of copyright. (William Macadam (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stevenson Macadam, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages William Williams, George Wilson and William Dick. 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) 10:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:William Macadam, from its old location at User:William Macadam/sandbox/William I. Macadam. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 13:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Majora was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Material on Wikipedia should be a summary of what has been published in independent reliable sources. Please only include references that are being used to verify content. References should come immediately after the sentence they are being used for. Zoominfo is not independent and "numerous other publications and articles" does nothing for us.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:William Macadam and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Majora (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! William Macadam, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Majora (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by The Voidwalker was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:William Macadam and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 13:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stevenson Macadam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Herbert Jackson. 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) 10:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, William Macadam. Some time ago, a file you uploaded — File:William Ivison Macadam b. 27th January 1856 d.24th June 1902.jpeg — was tagged with {{OTRS pending}}, indicating that you (or perhaps the copyright holder if you did not create this image) submitted a statement of permission to [email protected]. Though there is often a backlog processing messages received at this address, we should have received your message by now.

• If you have not submitted (or forwarded) a statement of permission, please send it immediately to [email protected] and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

• If you have already sent this message, it is possible that there was a problem receiving it. Please re-send it to [email protected] and let us know at the OTRS noticeboard that you have done so.

If we don't hear from you within one week, the file will be deleted. If we can help you, please feel free to ask at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

William Ivison Macadam

added links pointing to William Williams, PRSSA and Herbert Jackson

John Macadam

added a link pointing to George Wilson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, William Macadam. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, William Macadam. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "William Macadam".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Corbett001.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Corbett001.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EDITOR. I notice that the Link on Aleen Cust Wikipedia Page says that she attended William Williams 's and then a separate link to New Veterinary College. She did attend the New Veterinary College but the Wikipedia Link goes to The Royal Dick Veterinary College. They were two separate veterinary colleges. See the Wikipedia entry for William Williams (veterinarian) and also for Stevenson Macadam that explains this. The New Veterinary College was set up after Dick died and left it to the Burgh of Edinburgh and the New Veterinary College was started by William Williams, the principal of the Dick Veterinary College for reasons explained in the Stevenson Macadam entry. They were two different entities and the New Veterinary College should not link to the Royal Dick Veterinary College. Can someone fix this? Many thanks. William Macadam (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO SEE William Ivison Macadam Wikipedia page under Encouragement of Women. William Macadam (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Pioneer Courthouse, from the panorama of A. H. Walzer.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANSWER

GOSH this is annoying. I did not make change to the file so why am I being contacted. The picture was supplied for the article with full permission to use by Geoff Wexler, Oregon Historical Society's then Head Librarian. THe photo was taken over 150 years ago. It comes from the OHS collection. I have made this clear before and it has been part of the article for years.William Macadam (talk) 10:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EDITOR :These computer bots do create unnecessary deletions and should not. The Photo was supplied for the article with full permission to use by the Oregon Historical Society, 1200 SW Park Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97205, Tel; 503 222,1741 through Geoff Wexler, Oregon Historical Society's then Head of Archives. The photo was taken over 150 years ago. It is in the public domain and out of copyright but comes from the OHS collection who asked for them to be credited when used. I have made this clear and and it has been part of the article for years. Please reinstate it into the article. Thankyou. William Macadam (talk) 12:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was very surprised to see the Round Table movement not already mentioned in Macadam's article at all before the edit. Certainly the activities of this network are extremely significant in world history. Their magazine did not drop the subheading "A Quarterly Review of the Politics of the British Empire" until after the Second World War (when the British began to pretend they were no longer an empire, going the "soft power" route). I don't see a problem with mentioning the Annual Register in the introduction as well, if you so wish. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://www.moot.org.uk/about/history.asp. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, William Macadam. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ivison Macadam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The World Today (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 20:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this was by C. E. Carrington, see the notice on the Chatham House website here, and the entry for the original 1959 work in the National Library of Australia catalogue here. DuncanHill (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message - you make some good points, so I've moved Carrington's article to Charles Carrington (historian), and added a bit to the lead paragraph as well. Would you be able to expand the article? It looks like the sort of thing you have the knowledge to take on. All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Duncan, I have expanded the C.E.Carrington article as you suggested. I hate doing this as it required much rearranging of the hard work someone has already put into it. However I do believe it better represents the entirety of this distinguished man's career and hope the earlier posters recognise that and are not upset. There was much as you will see that was not it the previous entry.  

"I also notice that a number of Wikipedia entries in the past, as his did, describe someone as a military officer or soldier in brackets after their name which is misleading as it indicates that that was their career when they served their country only in time of war. I am sure my edit can be improved but it better represents the entirety of the man, I hope.William Macadam (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)"William Macadam (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] 

I think the article now does a much better job of describing his whole career - I'll keep an eye open for any other useful sources that could add to it. I'm sure that no-one will be upset by seeing an article improved, certainly whenever anyone expands and improves any of the articles that I have started I'm actually rather pleased to see someone taking an intelligent and constructive interest. DuncanHill (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with...

I have a new Wikipedia page entry that I want to move from my Sandbox for publication. Titled:William Macadam 1783-1853,

I forget how and do not want to lose my work. Could you kindly assist so months of work does not get listen process.

Many thanks.

William Macadam (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Macadam (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve moved it to Draft:William Macadam, the preferred location for drafts. It’s already submitted for review, so an AFC reviewer should get to it at some point, and it can then be moved to mainspace. Yunshui ^雲_水 19:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to start a new Sandbox while I have the Draft article (above) showing transferred and submitted for review from my existing one. Can someone advise proper procedure to be able to use my sandbox for another article? I seem to be trying to create second sandbox incorrectly or is it safe to just edit and type in above the transfer text in my existing one? Many thanks, William Macadam (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can have as many sandboxes as you need. Your main sandbox is at User:William Macadam/sandbox, and to make new ones just add something after "sandbox", eg User:William Macadam/sandbox1, User:William Macadam/sandbox2, etc. You can click on those redlinks and start editing. DuncanHill (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi William, it certainly looks ready to transfer to mainspace. You can do this with the "move" button - this is one of the tabs at the top of a page (exactly where depends on the preferences you have set on Wikipedia). There's a description of how to move a page at Wikipedia:Moving a page#How to move a page. Once you've done this you'll need to add wikilinks from relevant articles to it. It will also need categories adding. If you have any problems moving it let me know and I'll try to help. DuncanHill (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks fine! I've done a couple little pieces of housekeeping on it. I'll leave the unreviewed tag at the top for now - although I cold remove it, I don't usually take part in the "article review" process, I'd prefer to leave that to someone who specialises in it. Are you OK about adding categories? DuncanHill (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are a way of grouping people, places, etc together by a shared characteristic. There's some guidance about doing it for people at WP:COP. I'll add some to the article so you can see the sort of thing I mean. DuncanHill (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can see from the page history the categories I've added. These usually appear at the bottom of the article. Each is added by an edit like this. I use a tool called HotCat (it's linked in the edit summaries) to make this easier. There are a huge number of categories, and some of them have a huge number of members, so it's best to put an article in the "deepest" categories applicable only - so for example Category:Businesspeople from Portland, Oregon is better than Category:People from Oregon. It's good if you do put them on articles you create - but don't over worry if you're not sure what categories to add. It's the sort of thing that article reviewers will often do, as will other editors who come across the article. I hope this all makes sense! DuncanHill (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elliott R. Corbett, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Community Chest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, William Macadam. You have new messages at SJ Morg's talk page.
Message added 10:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hi, I've fixed it - see the article talk page for the explanation. All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William S. Ladd, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi William, thanks for your message. Picture credits and copyrights are a bit out of my area of expertise. As far as I know any attribution or copyright details do go on the Commons page, or the file page here if the picture is not on Commons, not in captions. If you're unsure about anything to do with copyright or permissions then Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is the best place to ask, I've found it very helpful before. May be a bit busy with real life for a bit. All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"SJ Morg, you have removed credits under photos in Henry W. Corbett Wikipedia entry and also in Elliott R. Corbett entry. All these in the case of Henry W. Corbett have been there for over four years, except two new ones which were added this year. They were credits that I agreed with the Oregon Historical Society as a condition of releasing those photographs from their collection for use in the public domain with credit to them. Others are as a condition for for professional photographers to have taken a photo commissioned by me and then kindly placed in the public domain (in Wikipedia Commons) as mutually agreed as a waiver for payment etc. 

"Both articles had been reviewed by Wikipedia senior editors, accepted, and graded without any interference since the photos were put up. Indeed, you had regularly also made some punctuation or other minor correction without finding a problem in them. 

"I did not want to undertake the Elliott R. Corbett entry but was contacted by historians in Oregon asking that I do so. Especially as Wikipedia had an entry on his house and such things as the First National Bank Building, his grandfather and brothers. This was because I had access to the Elliott R. Corbett Archives that I had been sorting and archiving with the intention of having them go to the Oregon Historical Society in Portland Oregon. It was felt that since his papers were here that I was the only person that could accurately do an entry. So I undertook this very large undertaking which hopefully other Oregon historians and researchers will be able to add to in due course. 

"The Wikipedia Manual of Style that you quote as reason for this large edit and elimination of the credits states This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. 

"It seems to me that common sense has not been applied here and you have to realise that your activities, when excessive, can be seen to be meddlesome, a nuisance and make contributing to Wikipedia a very unpleasant experience, although I am sure that is not your intent. Surely you can have the courtesy to inquire on an editor’s talk page if the party would have any objection to amending their work in a major way? Wikipedia is a broad church of volunteers and it is important to take into consideration a broad range of views and consideration for the contributors’ exhaustive work in making the page possible. The edit suggesting change in format that you quote as suggested re Wikipedia picture credits was only made, I believe, in May 2018 and should obviously not apply to any entries made previously in any case. 

"To give you a few examples, imagine my surprise to get an automatic email notification from Wikipedia that an entry on John Macadam, a Scottish-Australian individual had been corrected by you. I had been asked by Australian and British historians and academics if I could do some further research on the individual and expand the original entry. I knew next to nothing about the subject but did so and it took many months of research in mostly Australian papers and their learned societies’ journals. My research, as most that I have researched for Wikipedia was peer reviewed by the historians and academics. 

"Obviously, you like to read and correct my work even though this seemed far from your usual constant interest in changing entries that have to do with Oregon, which I understand is where you live. What was your correction? It was correcting the spelling from that of Australian usage to American spelling. Why would you do this? Except that you have constantly been doing so over the years. I suspect that you believe Webster is the only correct spelling? The article says on the edit page . Someone – or something – notified you and you changed it back but these fiddles often seem petty and unnecessary and can be annoying when incorrect. There are different ways of spelling English, although Oxford English Dictionary is usually an acceptable standard internationally when not indicated otherwise but may not always be desirable. Even in the mother of the tongue in Britain, Oxford English or Times English are both used, in the US Webster reigns, in Canada the Gage Canadian Dictionary / Canadian Oxford Dictionary rule and so on. There is no Commonwealth English as your correction seems to infer. There iare different common spelling usage in all English speaking countries and of course actually different word ie lorry in Britain and truck in the US which should both be avoided if possible for a common generic word such as vehicle. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Spelling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#National_varieties_of_English etc. 

"I took out red headings of names in, the Henry Failing article, as I thought they were only left in in error when someone thought there was a page on the person, otherwise if they are left in all over the place it seems slovenly editing to me as anyone wanting one in should take the trouble to research a write a properly sourced page. I was unaware that this was a purposeful edit by you. I was able to put a link to the Portland Terminal Company (builder/owner of Portland Union Station), which could have been done with a bit of research by you rather than just reinserting the red heading, I would have thought without me having to do it? 

"However, the New York Times article of 19 June 1888, I had researched for Henry W. Corbett and reproduced by another in that article had a W.H. Holcomb (one of your red fellows) elected to the board of the Oregon Steam Navigation Company. However, you have changed this to William H. Holcomb (still adhering to red without an entry for him). Unless you have researched and confirmed that, it is he, it can be misleading to change a newspaper report. It would be perhaps proper to footnote him as “Possibly William H. Holcomb” or if you have further evidence “Probably” and add something about him. Surely historical newspaper reports should not be rewritten unless you know the new name to be a fact as it may mislead future historians or editors (and always wise to bear in mind that the NYT report could have had the initials wrong in their report, even if there was better proof reading in those days)? 

"I hope you will take this in the constructive spirit that it is meant but the problem that you create by constantly fiddling and correcting spelling, minor stylistic grammar, adding red name entries etc., comments on whether a photograph of a north and south elevation of house is necessary such as in the Hamilton F. Corbett entry showing his house – obviously in the view of the author, in this case me, it was felt it was desirable as it was a very a-typical house in the Northwest US by an important international architect and the first time an image of it had been put up in Wikipedia. Something important for many readers and historians, especially architectural ones. 

"You have changed my text a number of times without indicating that you had in the articles Revision History. The only way I knew it was you was that I got a notification from Wikipedia but there is no record in the Revision History. Somewhat unsettling. I have in the past always let your amendments go. 

"I have researched Oregon’s and Portland’s rich history for fifty years with the help of its prominent historians past and present. I have been trying to get down much of what I have into the public domain while I am still able. For instance, the Henry W. Corbett entry was the result of painstaking research that took twenty years to get just as far as it is with numerous visits to Portland, the Oregon Historical Society archives etc from abroad and references to hundreds of books and documents. It is by far the most comprehensive history on this significant early Portland pioneer in one place anywhere and it is on Wikipedia. 

"There is much in the Oregon Wikipedia entries, of which you seem particularly interested in editing most entries, that needs attention and additions. For instance, to name but one, the Portland, Oregon entry’s history of Portland’s first one hundred years is very inadequate indeed and is misleading as is. Portland, the then largest city in the Northwest was referred by most early historians as a highly civilised city and likened to Boston on the Pacific. You can see just how much so by looking at the entries of the Oregon and Portland pioneers such as H.W. Corbett, W.S. Ladd, Cicero H. Lewis, Henry Failing, etc. etc. or reading any of the histories covering the early years of Portland and Oregon many sourced there. It had thriving businesses, cultural institutions and important architecture. Its 1905 Lewis and Clark Exposition, its World Fair put Portland on the international map in but half a century after its incorporation. None of this a worldwide reader looking up Portland, Oregon would be aware of from the Wikipedia entry, which only refers to the waterfront and its, in effect, red light district. This surely could have been something constructive that caught your eye and should have concerned you to see it was remedied and take precedence over fiddling with other people’s sound bodies of work. 

"I was going to take a stab at remedying this by adding to that entry, among others, if I had the time to do so. However as an eighty-year-old historian and lifelong historical and investigative researcher, I will not do so now because you make the Herculean effort to add and research fully referenced work, so distressing and annoying. I, like any author, warmly welcome any input that can improve an article. Sometimes indeed you have, for which I am most grateful, but too often it is meddling for meddling’s sake, it seems to me. I am sure that you mean well but these constant interferences in search of a reason to do so are unpleasant when it is others who have done a colossal amount of research, work and writing an entry. I have never come across anything but courtesy and helpfulness with my work from Wikipedia editors outside of Oregon, which has to be one of the most courteous of places, but it can be unpleasant experience for an Oregon subject knowing that you will likely have something you will want to change sometimes when it actually negates my word and undertaking. 

"I am afraid I feel duty bound to re-insert the some of the photo/image credits as I had agreed with the parties supplying them to mutually acceptable terms. Picture credit terms which make not the slightest bit of difficulty to any reader. Some additional credits were put in to standardise the entries throughout. These I can look at taking out if they bother you but it would seem better to follow a standard throughout the entry. The edit change you quote as suggested re Wikipedia picture credits was only made, I believe, in May 2018 and should obviously not apply to any entries made previously in any case. 

"However, I do not want you to edit my entries any further, if you do not mind, without discussing it with me first. Of course, if you want to take this to third party arbitration that is your right but I sincerely hope that I am not put through that added bit of aggravation. 

"I also hope that this does not sound like I am not appreciative of some of your trouble in looking the articles over. It is just that there has to be ban end to it and you have seen most of these photos in the article credited like this for at least four years and no objection by any of the Wikipedia senior editors or appraisers has been made and there has to be a stop to these constant changes for change sake, I am sure you will agree on reflection. 

"Best regards, William Macadam (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 

Between late May and now, I was busy preparing for a trip, taking said trip, and unpacking from said trip, so I couldn't spare the time to fully read – and compose a reply to – your long message of 3 June until now.

You imply that my edits to two of "your" articles were extensive, but they undoubtedly affected less than 1% of the text. I essentially made just one major change, to remove all of the photo credits (per MOS:CREDITS, as I noted). I started to make some changes to bibliography and reference 'style' elements (punctuation, abbreviations, etc.) because your style was so very different from what I have seen in bibliographies on the hundreds of other articles I have read on Wikipedia, but stopped after just a few changes, deciding it would be too much work. You could easily review and revert those changes in 30 seconds.

First and foremost, I urge you to read Wikipedia:Ownership of content.

The main problem is that you made promises, to persons supplying you with images, that you did not have the legal right to make. No editor has total control of any Wikipedia page, and it is impossible for you to guarantee that image credits will be included in any given Wikipedia articles. That's not how Wikipedia works. I have written close to 100 articles for (mostly small-circulation) print magazines, and although the editor has the final say in each case, I can at least be sure that what ends up in print won't be changed later by someone else. The fact that that is not the case with Wikipedia, that anyone can come along later and 'muck up' what I wrote, is certainly frustrating at times, but I have to accept it – as do you. If no one pointed this out to you before now, that's unfortunate, but don't blame me; I'm just the messenger.

You say that other "senior editors" have reviewed and rated your articles. Well, anyone can rate a WP article (it's very informal), and I know that many editors bestow ratings on articles based on only a quick look-over, judging mainly by length, general standard of writing, and (number and apparent quality of) sources. Details such as the inclusion of credits in photo captions are often not scrutinized until an article is nominated for Good Article status. I can tell you that, should you ever decide to nominate one of "your" articles for GA status, you (or whoever nominated it) will be given a list of things that must be changed before the nomination is approved, and that will include bringing the article into line with the Manual of Style, which will include removal of photo credits.

My removal of photo credits did not lack common sense, as you suggest. I've been editing here for almost a decade, and "your" articles are practically the only Wikipedia articles I have ever seen that included credits in the image thumbnails in the article. So, such credits are extremely non-standard, and there is no good case for an exception here; the fact that you made promises to the providers - an error on your part - is not a sufficient argument. I challenge you to find even half a dozen other Wikipedia articles (out of the 5.7 million), ones not edited by you or your associates, that include image credits. The inclusion of such credits is effectively non-existent on Wikipedia. Also, the MoS policy on image credits has been around for many years; you inaccurately suggested it had only been created in "May 2018". The following text, which is the current version, has effectively been on WP for more than 10 years, as shown here (June 2008): "Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article. It is assumed that this is not necessary to fulfill attribution requirements of the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses as long as the appropriate credit is on the image description page."

Even User DuncanHill did not support your position, when he replied to you on your talk page (on 18 May) with "As far as I know any attribution or copyright details do go on the Commons page, or the file page here if the picture is not on Commons, not in captions." (boldface added by me)

You make all sorts of assumptions about my intentions and biases that are false and unfair. For example, (quoting you:) "What was your correction? It was correcting the spelling from that of Australian usage to American spelling. Why would you do this? Except that you have constantly been doing so over the years. I suspect that you believe Webster is the only correct spelling?" To the contrary, I have been contributing to British transport magazines for 35 years, and I always try to use British spellings in such cases, to the best of my ability. On Wikipedia, whenever I am editing an article that is about a British subject/topic or a European one, I deliberately try to use British English, even though it is not native to me. For example, I wrote the article Thomas Cook European Timetable (a respected British publication), and I tried my best to use British spellings, terms, and DMY date formats - all of which took some extra effort on my part. And yet you make broad assumptions about me based on a tiny number of edits to just three or four articles.

One cannot get an accurate sense of my editing habits based solely on looking at my latest few months of contributions. The nature and intensity of my editing varies through the year, and from year to year, based on how much time I have (I am not retired). I have written several complete articles (some of which I have noted in a collapsed table on my user page, many of which were already up to B-class quality when new), and when I write a full article, I do 99% of the work offline and then upload the essentially completed article in a single edit, making such contributions hard to notice when looking at the auto-generated "user contributions" data for me.

The fact that you criticize me for this edit to John Macadam is beyond the pale, given that a simple look at the page's history shows that I recognized that one of the two edits I made there was an error (changing to American spelling), and so I reverted my edit just five minutes later. No one "notified me", as you assumed; I simply recognized that I had made an error, and I quickly corrected my error. Although my standards are much higher than the average WP editor, no one is perfect, and I was a little careless there, thinking the topic was about an Oregon-related subject as the name Macadam is prominent here in Portland. But I readily admit that I acted hastily there, not paying attention to the actual article (and I even remember feeling chagrined when I had to revert that part of my edit 5 minutes later, because such carelessness – albeit on tiny scale, a single word in a long article, which you have blown out of all proportion – is rare for me). Half of the same tiny edit to the article, which I described as "correct[ing] a grammatical error", was correct; I changed a comma splice to a semi-colon. The comma splice was indeed a grammatical error.

"Commonwealth English" is short for English in the Commonwealth of Nations (which article was originally at Commonwealth English, before being renamed). I've heard a few other WP editors, in Commonwealth countries, use the term. It may be used only informally, but the term does serve a useful purpose of broadly referring to, e.g., spellings that are all the same in British, Australian and Canadian English, but differ from American English, such as with metre vs. meter and colour vs. color.

As to your reference to "red headings", I will just say that "red links" (as they are called here) are considered useful by many editors, as explained at WP:REDLINK. The person putting in (or reinstating) a red link may have no interest in doing the necessary research for an article, but they are still improving Wikipedia by consciously including the red link, which helpfully tells readers there's no need to take time checking to see if an article exists on that person, and might also encourage someone who does have interest in the subject (and access to good source material) to create an article.

And, by the way, I did undertake research to ascertain that the W. H. Holcomb referred to in the Henry Failing article (in connection with the Oregon Railway Navigation Company) was William H. Holcomb. My expansion of the red link there (in this edit) was an improvement to the article, for the reason I stated in the edit summary. One way that red links are useful is that, when one clicks on such a link and then clicks on "What links here" in the sidebar, it shows other articles containing that same red link. This is a very easy, quick and useful tool for any editor who is considering researching and writing an entry replacing a red link, as it provides one method (albeit far from sufficient by itself) for judging whether creating the article would be worthwhile. It shows that such an article wouldn't be a near-orphan when new, and suggests the topic is a bit more likely to be notable than if "What links here" produced no results. The red link "William H. Holcomb" is currently linked from three articles. WikiProject Oregon even includes a page called Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Redlinks list, since other users find it informative (in a small way) to identify article subjects that don't currently have an article but are mentioned in several. I cannot access the 1888 New York Times article, but assuming it said "W. H. Holcomb" rather than William H. Holcomb, I would have no objection to someone's "piping" the red link so that the visible text reads "W. H. Holcomb". However, as I did do the research required to confirm that the named person was William H. Holcomb, I feel my spelling it out was fine, even if the cited article didn't spell out the first name.

You claim that I "changed my [your] text a number of times without indicating that you had in the articles Revision History." This is absolutely false. I always leave an edit summary for every edit. 100% of the time. Not full details, but always a general description, usually with "copyedit" when I changed the article text's wording in "your" articles.

I agree with you that there are some Oregon-related articles that could use a lot of improvement (including the history of Portland, which is far too thin on WP), but Oregon already has much, much better coverage on Wikipedia than geographic areas of similar size and population, and I am one of the most active contributors to Oregon-related articles (but am far from limited to that area). The very, very few edits I made to "your" articles took only a few minutes, whereas the kind of research you suggest that I undertake would consume days or weeks. I am spread way too thin already, as I am still working full time, and Wikipedia is only a spare-time hobby.

Your characterization of my edits as "interference", "meddling", "constantly fiddling" (with another "author's" work) and of me as an "individual who seems to want to meddle in everything I do" (in your post to User DuncanHill on 18 May) is completely uncalled for. In every case, I was either following the Manual of Style or what I had observed – over many years of editing here – as common types of small cleanup to articles.

You are far too defensive about articles that are not your property, and unaware (or unwilling to accept) that your edits have (apparently; I have not done a thorough review) often been out of sync with Wikipedia's Manual of Style, which has been developed over many years, through consensus among thousands of editors. None of these articles is "your" article, and the sooner you accept that, the better. Writing for Wikipedia is very different from writing for print publications, as I said earlier. If this discourages you from editing, you would not be the only person to feel that way, and it would be unfortunate for Wikipedia, but it's not my fault, and I have nothing to apologize for.

I intend to avoid any future editing to articles for which you have been the primary contributor, not because you have convinced me I was wrong, but because I don't consider it a worthwhile use of my time to argue with, or enter into lengthy talk-page discussions with, another editor. If you were to take this to third-party arbitration, you would be unhappy with the result. It is clear that I am far more familiar with Wikipedia's editing rules, policies and guidelines than you are. My edits were not only entirely reasonable but were actually attempts (in most cases) to bring the affected article into compliance with a guideline that had previously been reached through consensus among many editors.

For the benefit of anyone else who might be reading this, I'd like to point out that in all of my very few edits to the 2-3 articles concerned, apart from correction of typos and similarly clear errors (such as this and this), my edits affected a total of about 10 words in the bodies of the articles (in this edit, this edit, this one and this one; photo captions and bibliography entries or references/notes are generally not considered part of the body of the text of an article), in very long articles (75,000 to 100,000 characters). Ten words. This makes your criticism out of proportion in the extreme. I can't imagine how you will react when someone else comes along in the future and rewrites entire paragraphs of one of those articles.

Again, I urge you to read Wikipedia:Ownership of content, because it's clear that don't understand one of the key ways in which editing on Wikipedia differs greatly from writing for print publications (or Editor-controlled, non-wiki websites). Like you (it seems), I have worked with both. – SJ Morg (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SJ Morg, Thank you for your detailed response to mine above. It was good of you to explain your point of view and take the trouble to do so at such length. I do appreciate that like so many contributing to Wikipedia, you have made a substantial contribution to it and I thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I in turn apologise for the delay in acknowledging your message. I am only now able to get to my computer to do so and to send this as I have had dear friends from abroad staying here, who I have been taking around historic places, and they only left earlier today. Many thanks for your reply. Best regards, William Macadam (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC) - William Macadam (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, William Macadam. You have new messages at SJ Morg's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, William Macadam. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page File:Hamilton Forbush Corbett (1888-1966) (cropped).jpg has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image was an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links were updated.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page File:Hamilton Forbush Corbett (1888-1966).jpg has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image was an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links were updated.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as John Macadam, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/macadam-john-4054/text6453, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:John Macadam and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, John Macadam, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:John Macadam. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:John Macadam with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:John Macadam saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI help} 23:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fowell Buxton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weymouth. 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) 06:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, William Macadam. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Ivison Macadam, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Willbb234 09:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your email - for ease of reference here are the shortcuts to the pages I mention:
WP:TITLE for article titles
WP:MOVE for moving pages.
All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alfred Eckhard Zimmern, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arnold Toynbee.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Alfred Eckhard Zimmern

added a link pointing to Andrew Ryan

Arnold J. Toynbee

added a link pointing to Andrew Ryan

Chatham House

added a link pointing to Andrew Ryan

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]