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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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.
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 (~~~~).
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.
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]
Sorry about reverting too much on the West Florida article
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]
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. βΒ John M WolfsonΒ (talkΒ β’Β 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 withΒ β or indeed respect forΒ β 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! βΒ John M WolfsonΒ (talkΒ β’Β contribs) 00:39, 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.
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 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.
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]
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.
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 personΒ : MrBroken 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 pageΒ : Mr Broken Heart Music I submitted all notable proofs in "External Link Section".
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]
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]
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.
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?
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]
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]
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]
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]
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 βpunctuationβ¦β hahaΒ :) 4theloveofallthings (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2023 (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 donΒ΄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]
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. 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.
"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 β 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."
A Wikipedian has publicly declared you a sudoAdmin. This means that the awarding Wikipedian views you as having achieved adminship status - just not formally. This WikiLove award is intended to express respect for an editor who carries great prestige.
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]
notable alumni of Clearwater High School
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]
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 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 π Corvette π 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]
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]
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.
@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]
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 Adolphus79βs 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.
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]
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!Β :) - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:31, 14 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]
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. βMandrussΒ β04:53, 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]
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]
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]
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]
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.
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]
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]
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]
