User talk:Adolphus79

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adolphus79.

Wikimedia Foundation

This is the User talk page for Adolphus79

Please take note: 1. Please start new topics at the bottom of the page by using the "new section" tab above or clicking here. 2. Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started. e.g. If I left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will be watching your talk page and will know if/when you have replied. 3. Please indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons (:). 4. Please remember to sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~).

Talk page guidelines Please respect Wikiquette, assume good faith and be nice, and bear in mind what Wikipedia is not.

Archives

2006 * 2007 * 2008 * 2009 2010-2020 * 2021-2024

Eminem

are u sure my edit its against the guidelines? i dont know now, so id appreciate an explanation thekingpachy (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "joke" edits are not appropriate for an encyclopedia, nor is personal commentary about an artist you might like. As the other editor mentioned on your talk page, leave levity out of article (encyclopedia) space, that's what user talk space, or your own user page are for. I would suggest you read the tutorial, and the Five Pillars, and please remember that this is an encyclopedia, not Facebook. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks thekingpachy (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wont do it again:) thekingpachy (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't allow yourself to be browbeaten from enforcing BLP policy

Your first notion was correct, a WP:BLP talk page contained an unsourced allegation that the subject said something wholly inappropriate and vulgar. Whether one loves or hates the soon-to-be next president, BLP policy still covers him. Zaathras (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have disagreed with the other user or tried to discuss it when I was told I was wrong, history shows it never works out well for me... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see this question taken to Village Pump. One of us would be likely to learn something, and learning is never a bad thing. But I don't care enough to do that.

But nobody was "browbeaten", so kindly cease the inflammatory language. Adolphus and I had a civil disagreement, this is not as black-and-white as you make it out to be, and CRYBLP is a thing. See my UTP for related discussion. As I said there, I do not concede this point and will do the same thing under similar circumstances. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you place personal animus above project policy. Pity. Unwatching this page. Zaathras (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaathras, I apologize for being hostile, I did not realize I was putting anything above policy, and that certainly was not my intent... Mandruss had already declared that they did not accept my apologies after I had restored their revision (hence the end of the conversation there), and I did not realize anyone was watching this page, is there something I can do to remedy this situation? - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I was unclear. I said "Apology not accepted" because no apology was in order. You and I are cool. Completely. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

née

Hi. I hope you are well. Please help me here .. I'm trying to understand why the link you supplied requires an inline here .. Thanks .. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whitney_Tilson&diff=prev&oldid=1270062968 2603:7000:2101:AA00:7962:D7BF:E7BB:426E (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the page I provided in the edit summary that explains the grammatical use of the word? - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see the page. I'm not sure where it states a wp MOS that the phrase requires an inline. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:7962:D7BF:E7BB:426E (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by "requires an inline"? - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you revised it, it is a blue-link inline. Which is not called for. Per wp:overlink. Instead, "née" should suffice. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:7962:D7BF:E7BB:426E (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand WP:OVERLINK, or the use of templates. Please leave it alone, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using that template. Also, it does not need to be parenthetical, as Birth name explains. - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I do understand wp:overlink. I am referring to MOS (not a WP article). I do not understand what in MOS - and please be precise here - you feel is violated by not linking the word née. Thank you. Plus -I do not understand why you just templated me on my talk page for in your view improper editing, as a response to my opening this conversation here. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:7962:D7BF:E7BB:426E (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you didn't even bother to click the link I provided, it goes to the MOS section. And if the phrase has not been linked yet in the article, and is not a common word that everyone knows, then OVERLINK (whether linked by MOS or WP) is moot. Why do you have such a problem with linking an uncommon phrase that has its own template to help in linking it? The warning on your talk page has nothing to do with this conversation, it is because you continue to introduce one-sentence paragraphs which goes against the MOS also. Your claim that you needed to "change focus" in a 3-sentence section about his personal life makes absolutely no sense. Almost every edit you have made on that article has had grammatical, spelling, spacing, or other errors, I would suggest you read the MOS in its entirety before making further errors or confusing and/or incorrect arguments. - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you claim to know the MOS so much better than I do, please feel free to quote whichever part you are claiming states that we can't use templates to link uncommon words the first time they are used in an article. - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it appears in over 100,000 articles on wp, how do you come to the view that it is uncommon? 2603:7000:2101:AA00:7962:D7BF:E7BB:426E (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a quote from the MOS, and actually, helps explain exactly why there is a template. - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring here to your reference to wp:overlink and your assertion as to the word being uncommon. As far as my prior reference to my "bothering to click the link" you provide - this was the link you first provided above https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_name#Maiden_and_married_names It was to a WP article page. Not an MOS page. And I ask again - Given that it appears in over 100,000 articles on wp, how do you come to the view that it is uncommon? 2603:7000:2101:AA00:7962:D7BF:E7BB:426E (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100,000 instances of the word being used in an encyclopedia of almost 7 million articles. And how many of those instances are linked/templated? Where in the MOS does it say not to use it? Why are you so adamant about it not being used? Your original argument was that it "requires an inline", which makes no sense at all, and certainly does not fall under the MOS. - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that 100,000 articles uses it qualifies as uncommon is my point. Perhaps your view is that that is uncommon use of the word. Our view are subjective - we could ask others to seek a consensus. (I'm not arguing that it requires an inline - the opposite .. for the goals of wp:overlink; reducing needless blue linking. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:7962:D7BF:E7BB:426E (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:NEE... - Adolphus79 (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

Please stop stalking me. Thank you. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:C041:3E65:B966:1BAE (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? How am I stalking you? I don't even know who you are. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now, you are the IP jumper that tried to harass me and BLUDGEON me over the Nee template, then got shut down by consensus... You should really learn the P&G here before you keep running your mouth, you clearly don't know what you are talking about... LOL - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've now - since I expressed a differing view from you vis-a-vis editing a couple of days ago - in short order followed me to pages that you never edited before, to follow my edits with your edits.

Here and here and here, and here (45 minutes before you left me the above reply). I assume good faith, for starters, but this is so unlikely that it begs credulity to consider it happenstance.

I do not want to be intentionally targeted by you. I understand we had a difference of views, sought consensus, and will abide by consensus. But that is not reason for you to make me feel intimidated, and to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for me.

I'm simply asking you, politely, to kindly stop. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:C041:3E65:B966:1BAE (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Link #1 I was already watching before you showed up there. Links #2 and 3 are the same diff (and completely unrelated to whatever edits you made). Link #4 also had nothing to do with your changes/edits. You have now harassed me from 3 or 4 different IPs, tried to bully me and bludgeon me with your opinion instead of policy. Please feel free to quote which policy says I'm not allowed to check the most recent 1 or 2 edits of an IP hopping editor that has sought me out to interact with me and is known to regularly make errors in their edits and misrepresent P&G, or would you like to try to intimidate me again and threaten to get an admin involved? You sure do jump to a lot of conclusions for someone that claims they are assuming good faith. Or are you just basing your complaints on opinion again instead of policy? - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a dynamic IP, as I have indicated to you previously. Your edits - indicated - all within the past couple of days, followed mine. This is all clear in the edit histories. Your suggestion above - 45 minutes after your last such edit - that you had no idea what I was referring to emphasize the possibility that assuming good faith at this point may well be misplaced. I've neither bullied you or bludgeoned you, and I have sought to discuss matters with you referring both to reason and to policy. I have not sought you out - just the opposite. I am not following your edits, and editing after you edit, to seek to intimidate you. I am happy for an admin to take a look at this as you suggest. I regret that you did not just say "Yes, I was following your edits, and editing directly after them, and I don't wish to chill your desire to edit, so I will now stop." --2603:7000:2101:AA00:C041:3E65:B966:1BAE (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section above says otherwise, you continually misquoted OVERLINK to push your opinion instead of policy (WP:BLUDGEON), refused to quote the policy you were using to try to bully me (because you knew you were wrong about it), claimed an unrelated warning template was retaliatory, tried to have the same conversation on two different talk pages concurrently, tried to intimidate me "should I go get an admin?", and then refused to concede or apologize for wasting my time when you were proven wrong by consensus after you tried to "tell on me". And you are now trying to canvass support in a further attempt to harass me to get your opinion validated. There is a big difference between claiming my view is "subjective" (as you incorrectly did above), or that I "had a different view" than you (my "view" being policy, yours being opinion), and the fact that you were simply wrong. I have not gloated about you being wrong, I have not tracked you down to continue this conversation, I have done nothing that would show I am "upset with you for expressing your fiew (sic)". You came to ME, and you continue to push your opinion as if it were policy, including now making an accusation about stalking without quoting a single policy or guideline on the subject (maybe because you know you are incorrect again?). I only regret that my time has been wasted with your foolishness instead of constructive editing. - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I disagree with you. But if you will stop stalking me, the evidence of which I set forth above, that would be appreciated. Thank you, and I hope that you new year is going well. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:7971:D175:DC81:B43A (talk) 06:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For someone that keeps coming to my talk page with multiple IPs to complain, especially after 6 days of no interaction, you obviously don't understand the concept of stalking, nor the policy regarding it. How about you WP:DROPTHESTICK and worry about your own edits. - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) I've explained about dynamic IPs. 2) Why - after my request, did you continue five minutes after responding to my request that you stop? Kindly stop. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:7971:D175:DC81:B43A (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly did not even look at the link you just posted. Another page that I had edited before you ever showed up there, but you want to bitch about someone editing after you? How does it feel being a hypocrite? Seriously, get over yourself... LOL - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Millennial

Hey Adolphus79, my name is Chris. I noticed you edited the definition of millennial recently. I was born in 1981 and do not fit in with the millennials. After a long debate on Facebook. Many people and I agree that the age range for a millennial should be 1982 to 1997 instead of 1981 to 1996. This would officially solve the Xennial micro generation debate online and I could officially be a Gen Xer. I'm not sure how to edit it and was hoping you could help? Chris1981go (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! First, I just want to point out that I did not change the definition, I only added a missing comma to the article. That being said, I would suggest that you check out WP:EDITREQUEST and then make a request over on Talk:Millenials. Make sure to clarify exactly what you want changed ("Change X to Y") and include the links to whichever reliable sources you are citing for the change. I will note though, that what you are suggesting ("many people on Facebook agree with me") might fall under our No Original Research policy, so I can't guarantee anything at this moment, but we can see what happens. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask, happy editing! - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DOGE Employees (30)

Edit suggestion for the DOGE People section of the Department of Government Efficiency page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Government_Efficiency# - Propublica presented a list of 30 employees (pub. 6 Feb., updated 11.Feb.). See: https://projects.propublica.org/elon-musk-doge-tracker/ Thank you for keeping the DOGE info updated. VerificoLosHechos (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if you posted this on Talk:Department of Government Efficiency, where someone else might be able to help a little faster. I am on-and-off throughout the day depending on my schedule. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, will do! VerificoLosHechos (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UNDUE

How is the description of the website UNDUE? Selbsportrait (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how a paragraph with one sentence about each of the pages on a brand new website (half with little to no useful information) adds any encyclopedic content to the article about the organization? Not only do I believe it is undue weight given to excessive details about a half-baked website, it also appears to fail WP:NOTGUIDE #4. The first paragraph with information pertaining to the website (being created, going live, etc.) is one thing, a page-by-page description of the 5 (almost complete) pages on a website that looks like a high schooler coded it in three hours is whole different horse. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either one argues that a description isn't useful, or one argues NOTGUIDE, which isn't descriptive. One can't do both.

I doubt the work done on the https://doge.gov/regulations page can be done by an average high-school student. It deserves being treated in an encyclopedia.

Since you like to cite guidelines, consider toning down. Selbsportrait (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, when did I shout? The only thing I typed in all caps was a WP shortcut, after you yourself had already done the same. Isn't that rather hypocritical? Second, content definitely can and regularly does fail more than one policy or guideline at the same time. Third, if you feel that you need to discuss this any further, you are free to ask for comment and consensus on the article's talk page. - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is UNDUE a shortcut? What kind of shortcut is that? What does it mean exactly? How does it justify deleting a whole paragraph?

Don't you see the contradiction between describing and not describing?

Do you not understand the difference between the mention of NOTGUIDE like I did, and its usage like you did?

There is nothing to discuss. You're not discussing at all. Selbsportrait (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

50501

You reverted the date I added to the Massachusetts section. I added the date so that I could a new paragraph on today's demonstration. As the page grows, dates of events will be helpful. 24.63.188.236 (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today's is a different event. 50501 was a one-day mass protest, as the article and refs clearly mention. Any other events need to be on their own page. - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request re. Black History Month

• Follow up with the addition to Observance by Region:

Jamaica

In Jamaica, Black History Month is observed during the month of February,^[1][2] which had been informally adopted by the mid-1990s.^[3] Special attention is given to this period as February also marks Reggae Month,^[2] which coincides with the birthdates of the King of Reggae, Robert Nesta Marley OM, and the Prince of Reggae, Dennis Brown.^[1][4] It has been a time to acknowledge and honour the achievements and inventions of black figures throughout history, and to reflect on liberation, past racial adversity and struggles.^[1][5][6] During this period, locals reflect on and pay homage to the contributions of prominent African American civil rights activists, and Jamaican activists and pioneers who have been impactful internationally and nationally— like Marcus Garvey, Bob Marley, Peter Tosh, Harry Belafonte, Ferdinand Smith, John Brown Russwurm et al. Reggae's role in global social and political activism against apartheid, oppression and inequality,^[2][7][8] has amplified the significance of Black History Month on the island. Since January 9, 2008, February has been officially declared as Reggae Month, which also celebrates the genre's musical, cultural and economic contributions to the development of the island.^[4]

In the past, some critics questioned the rationale and relevance of commemorating an "imported" event to Jamaican contexts— in light of differences in demographics and experiences between the United States and Jamaica, and Jamaicans' penchant of adopting anything emanating from the United States.^[3] Others argued for greater attention to local heroes, while demonstrating solidarity with Black Americans.^[3] Xaymacan (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC) Xaymacan (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. "Celebrating Black History Month". Jamaica Observer. 2004-02-01. Retrieved 2025-02-02.
2. "Black History in Roots Reggae Music". Jamaica Information Service (JIS). Retrieved 2025-02-02.
3. Deborah A. Thomas (2007-01-01). "Blackness Across Borders: Jamaican Diasporas and New Politics of Citizenship, Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power" (PDF). Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania: 114-129. Retrieved 2025-02-16.
4. "Reggae Month". Jamaica Information Service (JIS). Retrieved 2025-02-06.
5. "Black History Month". National Gallery ofJamaica. Retrieved 2025-02-02.
6. "The significance of Black History Month". Jamaica Observer. 2024-02-01. Retrieved 2025-02-02.
7. Erin Kenny. "REACTIONS TO OPPRESSION: JAMAICA AND SOUTH AFRICA". The Dread Library, University of Vermont. Retrieved 2025-02-02.
8. Carsten Rasch (2024-02-02). "Reggae's resistance roots struck a chord in SA". The Mail & Guardian. Retrieved 2025-02-02.

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, Adolphus79. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Proposed deletion of Ironton Junction, Ohio

The article Ironton Junction, Ohio has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable railroad juntion, not a community. Fails WP:GEOLAND. Also, the coordinates appear to be incorrect, as USGS topos show Ironton Junction to be several miles due north of the coordinates given: [1]

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of counties in Florida reverted edit

Hello Adolphus79, I saw that you reverted my edit on List of counties in Florida. My reasoning for removing the description was that the current description ("List of Florida's counties") says almost the exact same thing as the title of the article ("List of counties in Florida"). It doesn't add anything that couldn't be deduced from reading the title alone and thus goes against WP:SDDUPLICATE; it fails to provide the "additional useful information" (emphasis mine) that descriptions are supposed to provide. For this reason, it should be removed (or, rather, replaced with the WP:SDNONE template; my mistake there). Also, note that the other forty-nine lists about U.S. counties by state have no short description (or a "none" description); while I know this isn't a complete argument on its own, it should show that the notion that list articles like this one don't need descriptions is at least somewhat intuitive and thus worth considering.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this. Thanks, Sqpac (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why I said I was reverting a possible good faith edit, no harm no foul. I didn't know the SD guidelines had been extended so much, I will have to read more on them. Happy editing! - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sqpac (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sqpac:, after reading WP:SDLIST (immediately below SDNONE), should we maybe make it "Counties within the state of Florida" instead of none? - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taser August 20, 2025 Edits Reverted

Hi Adolphus79, why did you roll back my edits to the Taser page?

The caption "Police issue X26 Taser device with cartridge installed" on the first image is clearly wrong. The device is named "TASER X26," not "X26 Taser." And it was released in 2003. See, e.g., https://taser-evolution.axon.com/ from the manufacturer of the weapon and owner of the TASER brand. If we want to change it to "Taser X26" to match capitalization throughout the rest of the page, that is fine with me. But as currently phrased it is inaccurate.

Similarly, the caption "The M-26 Taser, the United States military version of a commercial Taser" on the second image is clearly wrong. The device is named the "Advanced TASER M26," not "M-26 Taser." See, e.g., https://taser-evolution.axon.com/ from the manufacturer of the weapon and owner of the TASER brand. If we want to change it to "Advanced Taser M26" to match capitalization throughout the rest of the page, that is fine with me. But as currently phrased it is inaccurate. Moreover, the Advanced Taser M26 was not "a military version of a commercial Taser" and the current provided citation is broken and does not support that statement.

The addition of Taser 10 information in the Function section was provided with a citation, yet you still removed it for an unclear reason.

The correction of "taser" to "Taser" in the Italy section matches capitalization on the rest of the page. Those are the only instances of "Taser" that are not capitalized.

If you want to remove the EL that were added for Taser Pulse 2 and Taser Bolt 2, that is fine and my apologies if that edit was against the rules. The links were intended to provide support that both models are currently being offered by Axon (which is misspelled on the page as "Axons", another edit that was rolled back). But, the rest of the edits are all accurate and made in good faith. 70.190.113.131 (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @70.190.113.131:, I reverted three edits in a row, only two were yours. The other editor had randomly added all caps spelling (TASER) only in certain spots, which is a change that would need to be discussed on the talk page for uniformity concerns (as, from your statement, I believe you would agree). Then, your first edit added embedded links to a retail website, not a reliable source, which we get a lot of around here and is, if not done blatantly as spam, generally considered spam (especially if embedding them instead of making them proper refs). Looking again now, I apologize for your second minor edit getting caught up in my broad revert net, the simple capitalization of the brand name (Taser) for uniformity is a completely acceptable change (as well as the proper nomenclature), please feel free to re-add those. If you have any other questions or need help with anything, feel free to message me here. Happy editing! - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will re-add the edits 70.190.113.131 (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Thank you - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Susana de Sousa Dias

Hi Adolphus79,

Nice to meet you! I noticed you reverted my addition of a complete Filmography to the page 'Susana de Sousa Dias', noting that most of the films mentioned in the filmography were already mentioned in the prose that followed. Even though I'm appreciative of your attentive efforts, I must insist that the filmography in prose in not only incomplete, but lacks the clear and comprehensible formatting normally used in Wikipedia pages. Is there any reason you think this is not a valuable addition to the Project?

Hope to hear from you soon!

Best,

S. Stickerers (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, I do not see a need for a table for so few films that are already well covered in the prose. If there were a large number of additional films not already discussed, that would constitute adding a table. Second, you added 2 films to the table that were completely unsourced or mentioned anywhere else in the article. If you feel the article is "incomplete", then you should add sourced content, not a table of unsourced non-notable films. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your attention. To respond to the first point, many filmographies in the Project use tables for clarity, and its use doesn't detract from the prose that follows. In fact, they add clarity and comprehensiveness to the page. To address your second point, you are totally right, as there were no sources for the films added, and I've promptly made that correction. Thank you. I have also completed the prose as to include the two new additions, with further reliable and credible sources. As to your comment about the films being "non-notable", I disagree. As per Wikipedia's definition of notable film-related topics, the sources added comply by both being independent and reliable, as they are widely known international publications and film festivals. Stickerers (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, blogs are not reliable sources. You used a blog as one of your sources, but being that all it does is prove the film exists, and there is no content cited to the blog, I will let it stay for now. I'm also not sure that you read WP:NFILMS in its entirety, as notability for a film requires a lot more than just a mention in a blog or being shown at a festival. One more small note, refs go after punctuation, without a space between. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your edits, and what appears to be a single purpose to your editing, I am now curious as to what your relationship is with Susana de Sousa Dias? - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Welcome

Greetings, Adolphus79. Thank you for welcoming into the wiki! I will try to contribute and make this community a better place.

Thanks again, Wikibianca 23 (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fordlândia Panacea

Can we redirect or Draftify this? Bearian (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If asking my opinion, I don't see any reason it can't be redirected to Susana de Sousa Dias. Worst case scenario, it becomes a big hit and we can recreate it at a later date. - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No Kings Protest Source

Undid your undo on the No Kings Protest, and I add sources for the information there. It's also listed on their official website, although I don't really know how I'd site that due to it not being an article and able to change Dealydiamond98 (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And their website is self-published, not a reliable source. - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS Linking

Thank you! I had no idea, fixing now. Xkeylimepie (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are WP:WIKILINKS, for future reference... ;) - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I see now, I should have linked you to that page instead of MOS:LINKING... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You rock Xkeylimepie (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, was just a newbie myself a long time ago... I remember how the minor details sometimes get lost in the bigger tutorials... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reset and apology

I'm sorry about my conduct at 2023 Jacksonville shooting (and the talk page), User talk:Raskuly, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Raskuly. You were right about there not being a consensus (at least that we know about, it could be hiding somewhere, but you were still right anyway since I couldn't locate it even if it does exist) and my final revert was edit warring behavior. I've been a consistent contributor for three or four years and while I've not been involved in something like this before, my experience meant that I should've not gotten involved in it in the first place. Raskuly (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true at all! Everyone should get involved, that's the whole point of having a consensus. That means everyone has a chance to comment, to let their opinion be heard, and the community comes to an agreement. What you shouldn't do is WP:BADGER others with your opinion as an official consensus/criteria while refusing to discuss it at all. As soon as I asked you to link me to the consensus/criteria, and you knew there wasn't one (or wasn't one that you knew of), you should have either looked it up on your own or just told me you didn't know. It could have been a much friendlier conversation, and we could have started a discussion to come to a consensus. - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that my experience meant that I shouldn't have acted as improperly as I did, not that others shouldn't get involved to form a consensus, which they of course should. Raskuly (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No harm, no foul... we all get a little carried away sometimes... :) - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer on my talk page, but given your edit summary when closing the ANI, I figure you'd want to be notified. You can find it at Talk:2023 Jacksonville shooting#RfC on what is a "mass shooting". Raskuly (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, the last message I saw was where you said "not today" at the end of our conversation. I've been kinda busy the last couple days with some RL drama here, but I will check it out. - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Am I allowed to give my own vote? Regardless, I didn't want to immediately reply with my own vote. Raskuly (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's what I have done in the past, waited until a couple others have commented before I did. I didn't want anyone to think I was loading the !votes... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to put a {{RFC notice}} on Talk:Mass shooting or Talk:Mass murder or WP:PUMP to find more people, instead of just those of us watching the article. Anywhere someone interested in this consensus might hang out - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the RFC notices, but I didn't bring it to the village pump yet. Raskuly (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to close it, to be honest. Could you link to where it would show me how? Raskuly (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFCCLOSE reason #1... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag, will it automatically be archived at some point? Raskuly (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should now, I just removed the donotarchive tag also, just to be safe... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okie dokie, I didn't see anything specifically mentioning that tag so even though it seemed correct to remove it, I didn't. Thank you. Raskuly (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mentor?

Reaching out because you left me a message on my talk page so wondering if that makes you a mentor? If so, I've found myself in the middle of an arbitration case request. Do you have any advice on suitable ways to bring others into the conversation? Thank you in advance. Xkeylimepie (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I just left the welcome message on your talk page because you were a new user, I do that for every new user I come across. That being said, I am not technically a mentor (I think you have to sign up to become one officially), but I'm always happy to help a new editor. As far as Arbitration goes, I have no experience there myself (not an arbiter or admin), and a quick glance at your case leaves me a little confused without digging into it much deeper than this hour of the day will allow. But it seems there are already a number of users (some I know are arbiters) that have commented on the case, so I'm not sure how you would bring others into the conversation other than adding notices on other (related) pages here on Wikipedia. I would recommend that you check out WP:CANVASS and or WP:ARBINFO, I think they would best explain what you can and can't do in that kind of a situation. - Adolphus79 (talk) 10:21, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly. Xkeylimepie (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think they misunderstood or didn’t read the link as their last two posts to editors look like canvassing. I may be mistaken. Doug Weller talk 18:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the appropriate notification under canvassing, it's ok to notify editors that have participated in previous discussions. If that it not the correct understanding, I am happy to recant/remove. Xkeylimepie (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reading your case again, I'm still a little confused as to what exactly you're asking to happen. I'm about the farthest from what anyone around here would call arbiter material, but I gotta say it's (currently) not looking too good for you. And Doug Weller is right, trying to draw in other users when your case looks like a WP:SNOW closure is impending does look a little like canvassing, probably not the best idea. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair conversation and equal application i.e. no double standards. Arguments should be made and heard, not discounted or flat out ignored because of a lack of seniority. But, you're right. Didn't pan out great. Xkeylimepie (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Winchester Model 70

Hi there, I saw that you changed and removed the list of the cartrdiges that the Model 70 has been offered in, you cite that the list is unsupported, yet many of the cartridges there can be found on listings the Winchester company has created for the rifle.

I only listed them a few years back from the ones that were in the article itself. My question is, if I gave the source for each cartridge mentioned there, would it be fine if I reverted your change? Rusadka (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I removed it because it was a huge list that was completely unsourced. Also, having a huge list in the infobox like that makes it look bad because it winds up taking up half the article. If you want to list all the calibers, you would need to first provide a reliable source for each caliber and I would suggest making it prose (written in paragraph form in the body) so that the infobox is not so cluttered. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will get to that soon, thanks for the feedback Rusadka (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice, I also did the same with your list at Ruger M77 for the exact same reason. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary account IP viewer granted

Hello, Adolphus79. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick, thank you! - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 November 2025

• News and notes: Temporary accounts go live and WMF board member self-suspends
  ArbCom elections draw close, and Wikimania '27 in Santiago.

• Community view: Six Wikipedians' thoughts on Grokipedia, and the humanity of it all
  It ain't a five course meal, according to one of our interviewees.

• Wikicup report: BeanieFan11, WikiCup victor of 2025, covers the results
  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

• In the media: Jimbo's book, an argument about genocide, and a train of shame
  Wikipedia's new rival, political controversy in Italy and other Wiki-reports.

• Recent research: Taking stock of the 2024–2025 research grants
  $400,000 USD in total funding: what did we get?

• Opinion: With Grokipedia, top-down control of knowledge is new again
  Does it shed any light on particular topics that are better suited to LLM-generation than others?

• Obituary: Struway
  Rest in peace.

• Traffic report: The documentaried, the disowned, the deceased, Diwali and the Dodgers
  You know your man is working hard, he's worth a deuce.

• Comix: Head of steam
  'Sblood!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberpunk Red: Combat Zone reverted change

Hihi hello! I am the person that made this change back on November 3rd, as the game is definitely out (I have played it). I have never updated wikipedia so I didn't know abut the source guide! Silly me. Here's a website link with proof ofits completed shipment and distribution by June 28th, 2023. More could realistically be added about its Edgerunners expansion as well.

There's a kickstarter post link which I tried to connect, but supposedly kickstarter is blacklisted? How would you recommend I find a source? Would a polygon or IGN article suffice?

Is there anything else I need to add so that edit can be un-reverted? Nf7no (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An IGN article about it might work, I believe it passes WP:RS. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael (2026 film) edits

There is no reason why Michael (2026 film) should not be placed in Category:2026 biographical drama films. WP:CRYSTAL refers to events based on speculation, not official schedules. Michael could be delayed, but until then the category should stay. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you just said, it could be delayed again. Until it's released in 2026, it is not a 2026 film. Per CRYSTAL, "... only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident ...", which would imply that, since it has already been delayed at least once, we do not know it will come out in 2026 any more than we know who is going to win the elections in 2026. Furthermore, we would need to be able to verify that it came out in 2026 in order to place it in this category, which obviously we can't until it is actually released. Until you can verify that it came out in 2026, there is absolutely no reason for it to be in the 2026 category. - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any single film scheduled for 2026 could be delayed, but it's not presumed that they will be. The fact that Michael has been delayed once has no relevance. CRYSTAL reads, "A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified." Why should the category be removed from Michael while the entirety of Category:2026 films and its sub-categories is allowed to stay? Not of those movies are guaranteed to to not be delayed either. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edited any other 2026 releases (that I know of), the short answer is they shouldn't be included if they haven't been released yet. As for the general "2026 films" cat on the Michael article, I believe that is auto-populated because of the date in the infobox, if you notice, "2026 films" (or its subcategories) is not listed in the cats at the bottom of the article. Even you quote there, "if it can be verified", do you have an RS that can verify that Michael is for sure coming out in 2026? I don't understand the problem, what is wrong with waiting until it comes out in 2026 to list is as a 2026 film? Why the need to push for categorizing it before it's even released? - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that is the precedent for upcoming films, as demonstrated by the existence of the category. We categorize based on scheduled release, not whether it's actually out. It is impossible to verify for sure that none of them will be delayed, but until that's what actually happens we sort them according to when they're scheduled. This is not speculation, these release dates come from official sources. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please show the consensus/policy that says that? The mere existence of a category means nothing, anyone can create a category. - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Category:2026 films and its subcategories exist and no one has tried to take them down show that there is a silent consensus.

Michael has already been automatically categorized into the above category, the one that I added only specifies that it's also a biographical drama film. Surely you wouldn't disagree with the genre?

It sounds to me like your problem is less about Michael and more about the existence of this category tree. If that is the case, I suggest that you nominate these categories for deletion en masse. In the meantime, no special exception should be made for Michael. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful in the future making comments about a user instead of their actions, that could be construed as a personal attack. My "problem" is people telling me that there is a precedent, or that it belongs in a category simply because the category exists. You have implied that there is a consensus/policy/rule that you are following, but it sounds to me like it fails CRYSTAL and there is no actual consensus as you are implying. If you do not have anything official to back up your claim, then I stand on CRYSTAL and will continue to until otherwise directed to an actual consensus or policy. No special exceptions will be made for Michael. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taking this to the talk page so others can weight in. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should have done that first instead of trying to bully me on my talk page... LOL - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]