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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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]