DonBeroni

December 2024

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! ^SMason_Garrison 14:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Please don't revert this warning, like you did with the last one[1], without seriously considering the issue I've raised. Removing a warning without any discussion indicates that you've read and understood the concern being raised. ^SMason_Garrison 14:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Saint Kitts and Nevis slave owners

A tag has been placed on Category:Saint Kitts and Nevis slave owners indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Batavian Republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ensign.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

thank you sincerely for your contributions!! :) x RozuRozu • teacups 22:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:21st-century Royal Norwegian Navy admirals has been nominated for merging

Category:21st-century Royal Norwegian Navy admirals has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 03:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:19th-century Royal Norwegian Navy admirals has been nominated for merging

Category:19th-century Royal Norwegian Navy admirals has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 03:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:20th-century Royal Norwegian Navy admirals has been nominated for merging

Category:20th-century Royal Norwegian Navy admirals has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 03:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Naval battles of the Napoleonic Wars involving Portugal has been nominated for splitting

Category:Naval battles of the Napoleonic Wars involving Portugal has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 03:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:17th-century Royal Dano-Norwegian Navy admirals has been nominated for splitting

Category:17th-century Royal Dano-Norwegian Navy admirals has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 03:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:18th-century Royal Dano-Norwegian Navy admirals has been nominated for splitting

Category:18th-century Royal Dano-Norwegian Navy admirals has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 03:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:16th-century Royal Dano-Norwegian Navy admirals has been nominated for splitting

Category:16th-century Royal Dano-Norwegian Navy admirals has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 03:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:19th-century Royal Dano-Norwegian Navy admirals has been nominated for splitting

Category:19th-century Royal Dano-Norwegian Navy admirals has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 03:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Naval battles of the French Revolutionary Wars involving Portugal has been nominated for splitting

Category:Naval battles of the French Revolutionary Wars involving Portugal has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 03:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Naval battles of the Thirty Years' War involving Portugal has been nominated for splitting

Category:Naval battles of the Thirty Years' War involving Portugal has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 03:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:18th-century Welsh slave traders has been nominated for splitting

Category:18th-century Welsh slave traders has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 04:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Combat occupations of the early modern period has been nominated for merging

Category:Combat occupations of the early modern period has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 04:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Naval battles of the Napoleonic Wars involving France has been nominated for merging

Category:Naval battles of the Napoleonic Wars involving France has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Scottish not British.

Hello there. You have edited many of the Earl of Dundonald's and called them "British". But they are Scottish. Obviously, Scots are Brits since Scotland is part of the island of Britain. But Ewan McGregor, James McAvoy and Sean Connery are all called "Scottish" and not "British". So why shouldn't the Dundonald's? They are Scottish. Please get back to me with your reasoning. Cherryblossomgirly (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi there; thanks for your query. My reasoning for the particular issue you have raised is the same for why I have described Sir Henry Moore, 1st Baronet as "British" even though he was born in Jamaica and died in New York. You will notice that in many of the Earls of Dundonalds' pages which I have edited I have not changed their identities to "British". However, for those who were most prominent as agents of the post-1707 British state (i.e. government officials, colonial administrators and army officers), British is preferable to Scottish, English, Welsh, Jamaican, etc. This is also why Thomas Carlyle is described as a Scottish writer but Ramsay MacDonald is described as a British statesman on their WP pages; the latter was most prominent as an agent of the British state whereas the former was not.

You will also note that the majority of reliable sources describe them as such; for example, the sources on Archibald Dalzel describe him as British even though he was born in Scotland, since Dalzel was most prominent as an administrator of a British, not Scottish, colony. Once last thing: I note that you have added "Scottish" in front of the "British Army officer" descriptor on Thomas Cochrane, 8th Earl of Dundonald's page. This is unnecessary and in contravention of established Wikipedia practise; British army officers, like all army officers, do not need an ethnicity descriptor in front of their job title and trying to imply that Thomas Cochrane was "Scottish" as opposed to "British", in particular without reliable sources, is unhelpful as best. The current state of the page does not imply his nationality or ethnicity, which is helpful given how contested they can be even in reliable sources. Regards, DonBeroni (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Doing a little research on the rules, you may be correct. I think it's a little odd though to say that you need a reliable source for the nationality of the Earl of Dundonald, who was born and raised in Scotland, a Scottish Peer and served as an MP for a Scottish district.Brianyoumans (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I fully concur with you that its a tricky issue, but if I may say so I'm pretty sure WP requires a reliable source for everything! In regards to the 8th Earl of Dundonald, the way his article currently stands allows for us to dodge the tricky issue of his nationality, since he was also a British subject for most of his life and British Army officer and British government official for all of his life. Obviously such an individual could well be described as both British and Scottish, but the current WP compromise regarding those who were most prominent as agents of the state and those who weren't is in my view the best current solution. DonBeroni (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

To agree with brianyoumans, i don't think you need reliable sources on someone's nationality. If he was born and raised in Scotland, that would make him Scottish. Surely that's not up for debate. Even though WP requires good sources for it's info, surely that sort of info doesn't need a source if it's just obvious facts. However, you have much more experience editing than i do, so i trust your judgement. I now understand the reasoning for the actors i mentioned being called Scottish but not Ramsay MacDonald. Thank you for the explanation. I apologize for the unhelpful placement of "Scottish" in front of "British army officer". I apologize for thinking i knew all about this subject, despite my in fact, lack of knowledge in the subject. I should've done more research instead of just editing without a 2nd thought. I haven't checked before replying to see if you undid all my incorrect edits, so if not, i will undo them all now. Thanks again. Cherryblossomgirly (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)