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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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

Archives

2006 * 2007 * 2008 * 2009 * 2010 2011-2013 * 2014-2020 * 2021

Chris Troutman (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You created the Kesha article.Defcool1 (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Is there something I can help you with? - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing Adolphus79 a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee!   Chris Troutman (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts by me on the Mac-10 and Glock section, are actually classed as vandalism due to you removing info or degrading the quality of a sentence/section of the wiki.

Just because I fought with you guys over how Assault Rifle doesn't stand for AR, doesn't mean you can target my contributions.

Thank you for understanding.

-A very angry individual on his last straw. Gun Nut perk (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one is "targeting your contributions", there are a large (VERY large) number of editors on Wikipedia, and several of us have multiple pages within a topic "watched". The reason each of your edits have been reverted has been explained clearly to you in the edit summaries and/or assorted talk page discussions. I'm not sure what level of understanding you have of the English language, but your edits have introduced grammatical errors, factual errors, and been against Wikipedia's policies (such as WP:MOS and WP:OVERLINK). Most importantly, you broke WP:3RR on at least two different pages yesterday, as well as WP:LOUTSOCK, fighting with other editors about your factual and grammatical errors. If you do not understand how editing Wikipedia works, or don't care that there are specific guidelines in place that everyone needs to follow, then you will continue to be reverted and warned until such time as you learn how to properly edit or you get blocked for being disruptive. - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adolphus79! Sorry about reverting all your edits on the West Florida article; as soon as I saw my mistake, I reverted it. The last edit you made left behind a bracket (which I went ahead and fixed) and incorrectly assumed you were a new user. Once again, I apologize for the confusion. Wikipedialuva (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, we all get caught up in the editing sometimes... :) - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think John M Wolfson meant displaying knowledge through talk page disputes, but instead participation in the deletion processes (AfD, CSD, and PROD). Just a thought. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, that's why I was denied in 2008, there's obviously no point in trying again... I do read the discussions, but have never felt like I needed to add my opinion just to later prove that I know the rules for an RfA, I think I do a pretty good job of that outside of the Wikipedia talk space. I think we have enough people arguing about stuff around here, I just wanted to help enforce what's already in place. I forgot that admins have to be jacks-of-all-trades and be knowledgeable about every single aspect, not just the areas they frequent, but even the areas they have no intention of ever working. I do what I do here, and I will continue to do what I do, quietly in the background for the next 17 years (god willing) as the community wishes... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean for you to take my advice so harshly; I'm just saying that some cognizance of deletion policies in the form of CSD/PROD/AfD is basic admin stuff. To your point of admins hav[ing] to be jacks-of-all-trades and be knowledgeable about every single aspect, not just the areas they frequent, but even the areas they have no intention of ever working, admins don't have to be knowledgeable about literally everything (I for one have rarely if ever set foot in either RFPP or AIV, preferring to stick to Main Page stuff), but deletion is such a basic toolset that separates the mopped from the mopless that all candidates (barring anything extraordinary) should have at least a cursory glance at each of the main deletion processes. I myself have rarely done any since my RfA back in 2020, but I can still tell what is and what is not a proper deletion rationale. Good on you for your two GAs, and it should only take several months to get acquainted with CSD and PROD, but your exit from the poll is not a good look. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am very well acquainted with CSD and PROD, I have read and done a lot of work on both. There won't be any CSD or PROD logs to brag about though, because I don't use any scripts. Did you ask me any questions about any specific deletion policies? I'm glad to see that current admins are still expecting more from potential admins than themselves though, I see nothing has changed in the last 15 years. My exit from the poll was because I got the answer I needed, I'm not sure why it is "not a good look", isn't it better to not waste the time of busy admins on pointless crap? Like I said above, I will shut up and continue to do what I have been doing, I know where my place is here. - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If that is your attitude, then the corner and away from the mop is indeed your place, and will be until you adjust it. You can't expect to police policy, which constantly changes and relies on discussion and community input, without having any significant experience with – or indeed respect for – such discussions and input. Lastly, if you're so sensitive that you withdraw your poll after a single mildly-negative response, then you don't have what it takes for adminship in the first place. Best of luck with your future endeavors! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup... shut up and get back to work, no one cares... on it... thank you... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I have your talk page on my watchlist, I'm assuming since this post in 2013, and so I caught your edits to your userpage today. You doing alright? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, just needed to be reminded of my place here... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be discouraged! You don't have to be an admin to have an outsized impact on the place and do a bundle of good for the world. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, I haven't done anything of merit anyway... - Adolphus79 (talk)

Question though! Why isn't Adolphus79 an admin? Sure you don't need to be one in order to have an impact on this place, but when someone already has made a significant impact on it - why would they be denied the title of admin? Genuine question. I'm new here so I don't know. Because I've had people who do have admin status carelessly nominate things for deletion without giving things a fair read. Whereas Adolphus79 has taken a lot of time on my contributions and always explains why the edit is being made, what is being changed and how to avoid it going forward. Just bizarre to me that they aren't an admin is all. lol. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

During a point in time when retention of new editors is a major concern of Wikipedia, having an admin like Adolphus79 would likely do this place a lot of good. Ya know.. someone who cares to help rather than needlessly flex their authority over others.

Is it possible to nominate someone for adminship? Because if you can, I definitely nominate Adolphus79. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have waited to respond to this to see if anyone else that has commented here lately would, but it appears I have scared off the few watchers I did have. As for the why, I can only tell you some of the comments I have recently received, which include such things as: I haven't written enough articles, I've never used any scripts or made any automated edits, I comment on stuff publicly instead of keeping my opinions off-wiki, I am mean to new users, I don't have any knowledge about Wikipedia policies, and I don't help out enough in the areas that don't want my help because I'm not an admin, among others. Add to all of that the fact that I have probably (most certainly) completely ruined any and all chances I might have had for adminship in the future because of my recent (and, honestly, still ongoing) mental health crisis that unfortunately bled onto Wikipedia a few months ago, because I have nothing and no one else in my life anymore outside of my beloved 'pedia...

Long story short... I've been here too long, I haven't done enough, I'm not a good enough member of the community, and the only people who want me to be an admin are the new users that haven't realized how much of a loser I am yet... but thank you for the positive comments, I'm glad I am still able to be of some use to someone... - Adolphus79 (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we realize exactly how much of a loser you are and that is why we like you. I am a loser. It's a badge of honor for me really. Who wants to be considered regular by todays standards? Gag!

I agree with 4theloveofallthings. And yes you can nominate someone for admin, but not by commenting it on their talk page. Check out Wikipedia:RFA/N, but first make sure the nomination is not something that Adolphus79 will decline. Fireandflames2 (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	For posting your thoughts
	Just wanted to say I really appreciate your comments at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting re the "14" or the "15". It's fine to take a break now & then but please don't be discouraged - I can tell you're one of the good guys around here. And THANK YOU. Shearonink (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I'm one of the good guys, or if anything I do even matters anymore, but thank you... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Adolphus79,

I saw that you have disputed some of my changes to the Englisch version of the page for InnoGames. I intend to edit this page (and the German one) further. I will do my best to provide acceptable citations. However, with regards to your dispute of my changes to the table of live games: I don't see how reverting to a version that doesn't provide any citations either represents an improvement. The list of current live games can be retrieved from the InnoGames website. The games' publication dates can be retrieved from the existing Wiki pages and press releases. Do you expect me to provide two citations (link to German wiki page + link to press release) for every game in the table? That seems overkill to me. And, again, the current table, to which you reverted, doesn't provide any citations either. Please advise.

Best

@Bebenzahn Bebenzahn (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I never made it down your edit to the list of games. My revert was based solely on the data in the infobox that you changed without adding sources for the updated content. I realize the previous revision may have also been unsourced, but that is neither of our faults, WP:BURDEN states it is the responsibility of a person adding content to source that content, even if some of that content is already unsourced (that just means someone didn't pay attention to WP:BURDEN whenever that information was added).

Looking now at your edit's list of games, it appears you removed some of the (previously released?) titles in preference to only listing the currently live games, was there a specific reason you removed those games? As for refs on the games, I think one ref for each (not a wiki article) proving it was/is developed and/or released would be sufficient. If you want to separate the games, maybe make a new list of "past games" and "current (as of 2023) games"? Remember, this is an encyclopedia, we care about history.

Also, may I ask, purely as a good faith COI check, are you affiliated with the company at all? If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. Happy editing! - Adolphus79 (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Adolphus79,

First of all, apologies for the long silence. First I was sick, afterwards I focused on the German InnoGames Wikipedia page. I am waiting for a review of my last edit, but previous were accepted. Once the review is complete, I'll be done. As of today, my focus shifts back to the English page.

Should you find the time to look at the German page, you will see that I have added sources for everything, including the data in the Infobox. All in all, I have also improved my editing skills, so I am hopeful and optimistic that you will consider my next edits appropriate, or at least largely appropriate.

As for the table of games: That's a tricky one. The German page distinguishes between live games and cancelled games - and I think that makes sense. InnoGames is as much a game developer and publisher as it is a provider of live ops services for its games. So, making a list of games that the company itself considers to be in live service, does seem to add value. Likewise, I believe a list of cancelled games provides value, too. My goal is to create an English section that mirrors what's on the German page.

What is highly problematic is the publication dates. In its comms, at least the comms of the previous few years, InnoGames focuses on the date of the commercial worldwide launch. For Rise of Cultures, that date is January 25, 2022, see https://newsroom.innogames.com/rise-of-cultures-new-city-builder-game-from-innogames-now-available-worldwide However, the official Rise of Cultures page https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_Cultures mentions April 14, 2021 as release date. That, however, was the date of the softlaunch in Switzerland and Austria, so it's actually wrong. The actual first day of softlaunch was on February 22, 2021. So, essentially, all the pages and tables that show release dates contain of mix of commercial launch dates, softlaunch dates, and even launch dates of single worlds. And I am not always sure which one is which. I don't know if I will manage to sort that out. Not even sure it's worth the trouble.

Which brings me to your question: No, I am not affiliated with InnoGames. However, I am affiliated with the Hamburg gaming industry, of which InnoGames is a part.

Cheers

Bebenzahn (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You created this article, and then tagged it for WP:PROD. Did you mean to request for its speedy deletion? If so, you should have tagged it with {{db-author}}. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create it? - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing no history before your edit today at about 3 hours ago. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were probably in the middle of an edit when it got moved away from article space, so when you published, it looked like a new creation. I've nor moved it back to Draft:Mr Broken Heart Music. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see the move log now... curious why you would move to draft space instead of allow deletion, the individual very clearly fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG with no signs of doing so anytime soon... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I try to give the benefit of the doubt, especially when dealing with inexperienced users, so let things incubate in draftspace. Sometimes it works. In this case it didn't. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with you, and I have helped multiple new users build up countless new pages myself over the years... but after reading the article, doing a quick google search, and then seeing the behavior of the user, I knew this wasn't going to go anywhere notable... I did the best I could with what I was provided, and the rest is in the hands of consensus now... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can able to google search about this person : Mr Broken Heart Music. You will get more informations about this person & its still notable for google search. But i dont know what are the proofs that you still need me to add in this page : Mr Broken Heart Music I submitted all notable proofs in "External Link Section".

Also help me in adding details in that page. DJ CatzZ (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same search page I saw, and the only results are where you have uploaded your songs, or written your autobiography on other websites. Show me a single interview, a single review published in a reliable source, show me anything that anyone other than you has written about you. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

actually you misunderstood a thing, i wrongly mentioned my page - instead of typing "i edited this page". DJ CatzZ (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I did... in almost every edit summary and talk page message, you have very specifically stated "my page", "page about me", "I want to update my all official links in external link section so i added my official links in external links section.", or even the original edit summary when you created the page, "I created this page, because this page is about me. And the links I have provided in this page is completely about me only. And I didnt used any copyrighted material if it was copyrighted then I'm sure that I am the copyright holder for that material."... please explain where I misunderstood you writing about yourself? - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hey many of them are editing my page and they deleting something so is there any ways to protect my page to prevent vandalism? DJ CatzZ (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is deleting what? - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Users are contributing to my page, but they edit unwanted things in my page like removing important links in external link section like wise they are deleting most of the things in my page.

Page link : Mr Broken Heart Music DJ CatzZ (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by "they edit unwanted things in my page"? As far as the external links, I deleted a few that were either unrelated to this individual or not encyclopedic. Other edits have improved the poor grammar, removed unsourced content or personal commentary, etc. The only disruptive edits I have seen were you and the other new editor (your sock?, your friend?) removing the maintenance tags and AfD template. Is there a specific edit you are talking about?

P.S. The way you keep saying "my page" makes me want to point out that you do not own the article. - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. I would also suggest you read WP:NMUSIC... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop editing unwanted stuffs in that page Mr Broken Heart Music. The information contains in that page are well important for "notability". You already removed official Instagram, facebook pages that are notable for that page/person. Also stop recommending for "page deletion", it doesnt contains anything wrong in that page. DJ CatzZ (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean, I only removed unsourced content from a WP:BLP (a Wikipedia standard), and I wasn't the one that opened the AfD. Facebook and Instagram are not reliable sources. You can't write a bio about yourself on another site, and then write the same bio here claiming your other autobiographical pages show notability. If you don't want the page to be deleted, start showing some real notability (again, read WP:NMUSIC)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Users are contributing to my page - This is not your page. You do not own the page. Articles in Wikipedia are a collective ownwership. If the article is about you, please read WP:AUTOB and see that writing an autobiographical articles is very strongly discouraged. - 14:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And now they've been blocked as a sock.... - UtherSRG (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're surprised? The first two socks were very close to being blocked for other reasons already, now I'm just waiting for the new one to show up... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. I'm the one who reported them. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You gave them 12 hours more than I did... ;) - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! UtherSRG (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey.

Based on your comments here about how you feel as though you're often wrong about such things at RfPP, I'd suggest that you might want to just lurk in the page for a while. To make it constructive, you could make notes off-wiki on whether you would or would not protect a page, or recommend/undertake some other action like blocking a disruptive editor, and then when an admin actually actions the report you could compare to see if you were right or wrong.

Depending on how your predictions go, you can then re-calibrate based on the actual outcome and hopefully get a better feel for when an article should or should not be protected, or when some other action is called for. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I need to make my comments public, otherwise no one will know my opinion for future reference... I did not mean to imply that I am wrong about the protection policy, just about everything in general around here, but thank you for the message... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could always do it on your sandbox. The purpose of this would be to make sure you're aligning with the current expectations of that process.

Though on the merits of the request for sex assignment, a quick look at the protection history of the article reveals that a year long autoconfirmed protection on it just expired, and the disruptive edits from the two IPv6 editors both started shortly after it expired. There is a reasonably strong argument to be made for a reapplication of protection there.

It's important to look at the page history as a whole when determining if it should be protected. Not just the recent edits that have caused a request to be made, but also whether it's been protected recently and if so for how long. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, I've been !helping with RFPP for a while now, but thank you for explaining the process to me. It really doesn't matter in the end, everyone knows I don't count, I just get bored and pretend to help... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for arguing with you, I will shut up and go back to my corner now... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright. No-one's saying that you need to "shut up and go back to your corner". I'm just trying to give you some advice so that you can, in the future, be a little more confident with the comments that you make at RfPP. The regulars might know you can't officially action a report, but the new editor who's making their first request for protection might not. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was a mistake for me to wander out of mainspace again, I just thought it would take longer than 24 hours for someone to complain... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Woah woah, slow down. I'm not complaining. I'm giving you some friendly advice, so that you can be a more effective editor at that project page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not effective or useful by now, I don't think I ever will be... maybe it's time to just give up, thank you... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adolphus79, we've never met and I don't know anything about your work on Wikipedia but I wanted to let you know that I appreciated your helpful comments and explanations. I'm sorry to read that you feel like you're always wrong or that your suggestions should be ignored.--TempusTacet (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, story of my life, I'm glad I could be of some (limited) assistance... good luck with your future endeavors on Wikipedia, may you have more of a clue than I ever did (or at least make some worthwhile contributions)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TempusTacet, and also reading your responses to people who are upset with your edits has me rolling on the floor laughing. I hope the self-deprecating is purely sarcastic, because your edits have taught me a lot and I feel honored when you rip me apart for my grammar or my “punctuation…” haha :) 4theloveofallthings (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message and the barnstar, it means more than you think. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	I admire the amount of work you put into the articles you watch. Watching you edit is helping me become a better editor and I appreciate that. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Adolphus79 this was me :) .. I had a global username switch. 9t5 (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I added the comments Spengler made critical of National Socialism is because if you read that article as it stands now, and you don´t read about Spengler in of himself, you may very well come to the conclusion that he himself was a Nazi fanatic. And besides, the comments I quoted are themselves sourced on his own article. StrongALPHA (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? - Adolphus79 (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You reversed an addition of mine on the page dedicated to National Socialism, and said it was unnecessary, don´t you remember? StrongALPHA (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've made over 1,000 edits in the last month and been going through a lot of shit on- and off-wiki, I apologize if I can't remember each and every edit's details at a moment's notice. Do you mean this edit that I reverted because it was completely unsourced? I would be careful with your future edit summaries, especially trying to be a sneaky dick like this. Your claim that I "had not engaged with you" was a complete lie, I had already responded above and was trying to figure out what your vague comment was referencing before you made your edit. What was the point of your message here? Am I supposed to praise you for finally following Wikipedia's policies and finding a ref for your unsourced addition? - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Adolphus79,

I have translated the German page of Rise of Cultures...

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_Cultures

...but couldn't publish it. Here it is:

User:Bebenzahn/Rise of Cultures

Can you help? I'd appreciate it very much.

Best,

@Bebenzahn Bebenzahn (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... is it a breach of etiquette to ask for help looking at some of my COI requests? Or can you perhaps give me some tags to add to the requests to get them into the appropriate projects, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms? Thanks! LoVeloDogs (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You are now listed as missing, as we seek to recognize those editors who impacted the project and are no longer contributing. Should you ever return or simply don't want to be listed, you are welcome to remove your name. Please do not see this message as any sort of prod to your activity on wiki, as we all would hope to enjoy life after having edited here. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal from member list

You have been inactive for more than 6 months and have been removed from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee birthday list. If you become active again please feel free to re-add yourself.

Best wishes, Chris Troutman (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not missing, so much as disillusioned... still here, still reading, just gave up on contributing for a while... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Two days before my birthday, I get removed after 18 years? - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I put you back on the list. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"To nominate yourself or another editor for adminship, you must first create an RfA subpage for the candidate. However, it is a good idea to seek out the prospective candidate before you create the RfA subpage – if the candidate wants to wait or doesn't wish to be an admin, creating the page may be a bit awkward for them, so please check first. This will also prevent the candidate from declining the RfA."

Adolphus79, are you okay with it?

9t5 (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I ok with what? - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, sorry. My bad. I was in the wrong. Didn't see the policy you linked. Cheers. Bremps... 01:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. FYI after an RfC last year, MOS:DUPLINK was changed from "once per article" to "once per section." Levivich (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read that, once per major section. I never knew it was once per article before, I was taught "once in lede, plus once in body after lede". - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please just leave those pages be. There is no point in reverting or whatever, and you do not have to feel the need to protect me from whatever they say. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't protecting you, that I know of, I was removing the death threats aimed at Magnolia677. I'm not going to let a good user be endlessly hounded, harassed, or threatened by a worthless troll. Either way, it is moot now, the page has been protected and revdel'd, and hopefully the troll has run out of proxies (I think I counted 12 different IPs, plus the 3 or 4 accounts). - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the troll has not run out of proxies, they've been doing this for weeks, so this is not moot; and nothing you do on an IP talk page where I was actually talking to the troll will protect Magnolia. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of these stupid page, they've now created 101 times. So please don't think that any revert of yours will stop them. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry, guess I fucked up again... I should know better by now not to wander outside of article space, no one wants my help anywhere else... I just didn't think death threats should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia, and asked them to be revdel'd, I won't do that again... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have twice added my name (Alan Boss = nalassob on my Wikipedia account) to the list of notable alumni of Clearwater High School. I am not sure what sort of reference link you would like to confirm this association beyond the fact that I know what high school I attended. BTW, my IP address shows up as Caltech because I use the Resnick HPC cluster there and need to be on the Caltech VPN in order to use the cluster. Thanks! Nalassob (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are zero mentions of the school on his (your) article, we need a reliable source to verify this information on his (your) article. You claiming to be this person, and "knowing what high school you attended" falls under original research, which is frowned upon by Wikipedia. Basically, without any mention of the school on the person's article, and without any reliable sources, we can not have them (you) listed on the school's article. Also, please be careful editing content about yourself, read WP:AUTOBIO for our policy about this. Feel free to message me if you have any questions or need any further help... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adolphus, I'm the one editing Omoluwabi Page, First of all I'm very sorry, if I have pissed you off, please accept my apologies, further more, I'm not vandalize the Page, I'm only correcting what you indicated and I'm fellowing your instruction according to what your complain.. thank you, please you can also correct me if I'm doing anything something wrong, thank you i appreciate your feedback. stay blessed 105.112.17.92 (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been correcting your errors, which you then restore over and over. When you remove punctuation, introduce overlinking (after already having a conversation about it), remove maintenance tags, remove refs, and otherwise introduce errors after they have been fixed, that is all wrong. When you repeatedly do it, it means you do not care if it is correct or not. When you continue making the same edits even after multiple warnings, that is vandalism. I am not upset or angry, I am just doing my job to ensure the article is grammatically correct and follows all of Wikipedia's policies. If you had only done it once, and apologized, then took the time to correct your own errors, I would understand, but you continue to restore your errors over and over, even after warnings. You continue introducing overlinking even after being told to stop. If you do not understand the policies in place here, or proper grammar usage (removing multiple periods for no reason multiple times), I would suggest reading the Manual of Style in full before making any other edits. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will like to extend my heartfelt appreciation to you Adolphus79 for your diligent efforts in correcting errors on the Omoluwabi page on Wikipedia. Your dedication to ensuring the accuracy and integrity of this vital information is truly commendable your contributions have significantly enhanced the page's credibility, providing a reliable source for individuals seeking knowledge on this essential Yoruba concept. Your selfless commitment to preserving cultural heritage and promoting understanding is exemplary. Through your actions, Adolphus79 has demonstrated the importance of community involvement in maintaining the quality of online resources. Your meticulous attention to detail has enriched the collective understanding of Omoluwabi, inspiring a deeper appreciation for Yoruba culture. Thank you, Adolphus79, for your invaluable service. Your efforts have made a lasting impact, fostering a more informed and inclusive global community. 105.112.17.92 (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanking me doesn't mean much unless you learn from your mistakes. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you regardless, had already learn from my mistakes 105.113.102.201 (talk) 05:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be completely over it, but we did finally get some admin movement on DustFreeWorld after I pinged the admin from his topic ban. You are a good and prolific editor; I hope this ridiculousness doesn't slow you down. Hiobazard (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they have completely ignored the situation, hoping to let it expire and be archived with no action taken. After looking at the archives, I realize this is not the first time Dustfreeword has been reported for the same behavior, buy they seem to enjoy impunity there. They are free to continue bullying other editors, this time with a new set of WP shortcuts is misuse. I would blow up AN, ANV, etc. to try to find someone willing to look into the issue, but know that no admins will help me anymore, they want me gone. - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Apparently, as I was responding to this, DFW was given a 1 week block... it's bullshit that they will get to come back to continue with their bullying and personal attacks, but at least it's something... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now they are trying their bullshit on the blocking admin... LOL - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I just re-read your comment, I apparently swapped the "we" and the "did" in my early morning fog (I read: "Did we get movement", as a question). Haha. Yes, we did finally get an admin to pay attention, thank you! It's likely not going to change anything about DFW, but at least I have a week of not being anxious to log in for fear of another attack... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, this whole drama feels like a movie. You got a lot of serious talk, blatant lies, escalation, climax, and finally the cliffhanger of a 1 week block. Definitely gonna remember this one. Anyways, I hope you're doing well. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 14:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it's not the worst treatment I have received from a troll, my biggest concern was the lack of action after a week of personal attacks ON AN/I... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For responding to you, apologizing and saying that I would stop? How is that persistent, or disruptive? - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you be thanking them for an edit to their talk page? Ignore them means don't find different ways to prod them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only thanked them for pointing out the WP:USERTALKSTOP, acknowledging their request after they had once again tagged me. I made no edits, nor attempted to communicate with them. In all honesty, I am glad it is over, and had already moved on. - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And seriously, 1 week? Where are the warnings and escalating blocks starting at 24h? - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Adolphus79 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

If the community would please reconsider my block, I genuinely apologize for letting the other user get under my skin. I believe my history here will show that I normally do not let situations like that get the best of me, preferring to laugh away most negative comments, but after a week of lies and personal attacks, I admit I lost my cool. I am over the situation now (to say, "rolled off my back"), per my statements in the above section. I know about WP:GRAVEDANCING, and that was NOT my intention. I promise not to have any further interaction with the user in question, 'thanks' or otherwise, and in the future will let editors dig their own hole without my help. I only wish to get back to work on my beloved 'pedia, and will try not to let such interactions effect my editing in the future.

Accept reason:

The interactions with Dfw were my concern, and I trust that this behavior will stop. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please do not change styles used in existing articles without WP:CONSENSUS. See MOS:VAR. Especially national styles like Brit. English ---> American English in articles on British topics like Blithe Spirit (play). Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers, Introductory commas (A.K.A. adverbial commas) are almost always used, no matter the MOS:ENGVAR (not VAR). Not only per MOS:COMMA, but Oxford English School, UKgrammar.com, and Cambridge University all agree. The largest difference in American Eng and British Eng comma use is for quotations and lists (the famous "oxford comma"), the rest of the sentence structure is not changed, particularly starting sentences with subordinate clauses ("On 31 October 2024, we had this discussion", "In 2024, we spoke about blah blah blah", "While in London, we went to see the play Blythe Spirit."), although for short sentences they can be skipped ("In 2024 it was hot."). Moreover, on ENGVAR, there is a section about MOS:CONSISTENT use. Meaning, if we use them in some parts of the article, we should use them throughout. I will ask that you please restore the small handful that I added, if nothing else, simply for article consistency. - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, after looking at articles like West London, East London, etc., I see that it is used in those articles also. I implore you to please look to see that they (introductory commas) are being used regularly across Wikipedia, no matter the ENGVAR. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have begun a WP:EDIT war at Blithe Spirit (play). Please revert your edit and take it to the Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an edit war, I very clearly gave a reason here (which you refused to respond to), as well as gave a concise edit summary. I even said in the edit summary to respond to this conversation before you reverted again. And you have again used an incorrect WP shortcut, the correct shortcut is WP:EDITWAR... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Adolphus79’s interpretation of BrE usage is incorrect. See current editions of Fowler, pp. 4, 732 etc and Gowers, pp. viii and 249. From the last of these:

The use of commas with adverbs and adverbial phrases:

(a) At the beginning of sentences

• In their absence, it will be desirable ...
• Nevertheless, there is need for special care ...
• In practice, it has been found advisable ...

Some writers put a comma here as a matter of course. But others do it only if a comma is needed to emphasise a contrast or to prevent the reader from going off on the wrong scent, as in:

• A few days after, the Minister of Labour promised that a dossier of the strike would be published
• Two miles on, the road is worse

On the principle that stops should not be used unless they are needed, this discrimination is to be commended.

I hope this helps Adolphus79 understand BrE usage better. Tim riley talk 12:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read the rules (although I did not read Fowlers), the sources I found (listed above) said they are not required in BrE, but not outright wrong. As mentioned above and in the ES, I only restored the second time for consistency because there were some sentences in the article that use them and others that do not, as well as other BrE articles here on Wikipedia that do use them. Also, because MOS sometimes overrules ENGVAR (see also: MOS:INOROUT). I apologize, I realize I could have worded my original response a little better, but that could have been resolved with discussion. When Ssilvers chose to ignore the conversation that they had started here, and then left a comment about me starting an edit war instead of further discussing it, I realized I'm over it and removed the article from my watch list. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For correcting my curly quote marks etc. twice in row. Will try to keep an eye on that :) Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea who's they were, to be honest. I just know a number of users can only do the curly q's (or don't know how to stop using them), so I just always keep an eye out for them in diffs. Please don't take it personally, it's just janitorial work... Happy editing! :) - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I didn't at all take it personally :) Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. Stop rewriting the dimensions. I'm not sure why you're so insistent on including metric dimensions. (The ones you provided aren't even accurate.) The town was platted and surveyed in 1870 in feet and acres, not meters. Tbone0106 (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The convert template is standard usage template, and allows readers who are not familiar with one unit of measure to understand the size of something. I understand it was measured in feet, but not all readers will know how big that is. If the template is not accurate, that can be fixed, but there is absolutely no reason to keep removing it. - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored them with additional parameters for more accurate readings per your complaint. Please do not remove them simply because you do not like them, or because "it wasn't measured in meters". - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the templates, and it's true that I do not like them, because they trash up the article, and they are completely unnecessary and extraneous. Not only was the town itself laid out in feet and acres (and poles) in 1870, but at that time, the metric system had not been developed and adopted much of anywhere in the world outside France. Converting units of measurement these days is as easy as typing them into your browser, as I'm sure you know. Cluttering up the article with these useless templates is... useless. Tbone0106 (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get into an edit war with you over it, but I am going to point out that that template is used on over 1 million articles on Wikipedia because this is a global platform. As I previously mentioned, they are used to allow non-American users to understand the size, they are not implying that the lots were measured in meters, and they allow people to understand that size without having to open another window to search for a conversion on Google. This is literally the first time I have ever heard of someone complaining about a convert template being used. Not being accurate is one thing, and was fixed with the additional parameters, but simply not liking them, and willing to edit war over your personal preference is unheard of. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re this revert, just for the record, I don't think that was vandalism--PPP is short for the People Power Party, the political party that Yoon belongs to. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed afterward that it could have been good faith, feel free to revert it. - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I see you have recently edited Seymour, Indiana. Would you have a moment to look at the content dispute going on there? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to help with, I do not see any discussion on the talk page about a dispute? - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]