This is an archive of past discussions with User:Adolphus79. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. External wiki pages do not constitute an excuse as to the exclusion of sources on the present page. Those individuals who have citations provided do not require additional sources, while all those marks {{Citation Needed}} do in fact require citations that confirm their attendance. Even the author of "politically correct bedtime stories" is listed as a graduate of both Detroit Catholic Central High School and Divine Child Catholic High School; they could not be notable alumni of both. Please clarify as to how the necessity of citing sources that establish attendance constitutes "Bad Faith."PSYCHREL (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)PSYCHREL
I already answered your original comment on User talk:Magnolia677. If the individual's article establishes attendance, then there is no need for a ref on this list. Also, your adding a ref tag to every individual on the list in retaliation to having one non-notable individual removed is pushing the limits of good faith editing. If you have concerns about one particular individual, I would suggest bringing that up on their article's talk page. - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The Our Campaigns website
I know you wanted me to find a website where I found the county results, but there was a link on that website for each state for history details and there’s a link for each election and it shows maps with some county results. Please forgive me. TylerKutschbach (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
First, I'm not sure that your ourcampaigns website is a reliable source, I can not find where they are getting their numbers from. Secondly, if there is a link for historical data and county specific data, as you claimed in this edit, please show me Floyd County's historical data. Don't just link to the main page, show me the specific page for that data. - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Your first link is NOT county specific, it only shows state-wide results. And saying that some pages have results and some don't is not helpful at all. I asked about the specific vote numbers and percentages for Floyd County between 1880 and 1908, as the user added in the diff I linked, which they referenced simply to the front page of the website. This is an ongoing problem with this user, adding numbers or changing the numbers that are there, either without providing any sources or providing a source that does not offer those numbers. Even if some other page on the source provided is agreeable to the edit, I (or any other reader) should not have to start at the front page of a website and then search and scour through a dozen other pages to try to find the specific data that is being referenced, we should be able to click the link provided and immediately see the numbers as referenced. Imagine, if you will, someone adding information about a movie star doing something, and linked only "cnn.com" or "washingtonpost.com", not the specific news article from which they took the information. The WP:BURDEN is on the editor that adds the information to Wikipedia, to provide a reliable source for others to quickly and easily verify the information being added.
As far as the ourcampaigns website being a reliable source, I can not find any mention of where they get their numbers from. The same is true about Dave's Atlas. Although it is used extensively on Wikipedia, Dave's website itself states it is original research, and does not cite any of its sources. "Seems pretty reliable because it is used by other people on Wikipedia" does not means it automatically passes reliable source or verifiability concerns. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Looking further into this, ourcampaigns is completely user generated, which means it very much fails WP:RS. The user that added the content on the page you linked (or created the page, the website is not completely clear) provided absolutely no sources for where they got their information. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Adolphus79: If you want to see the specific results for a county, such as Floyd County, then you should hover over it on the map, for example, this shows James Cox winning the county with 1,923 votes, compared to Harding's 667. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@Adolphus79: Also, you are right - there is no source saying that ourcampaigns or Dave Leip's atlas's results are reliable (although this website states that Dave's atlas uses "official sources", and it is commonly referenced by reliable sources, as stated in its Wikipedia page), but they are so commonly used on Wikipedia as such, and it would be EXTREMELY difficult to remove all of them and find a replacement. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
That's 1920, outside of the range in question. That also proves that we would need a separate ref for each year, not just blindly adding the front page of the website for all the changes made on every page. So far, you have done as little to provide the specific refs asked for as TylerKutschbach has, although you are at least willing to discuss it.
Also, how many times a bad source is used on Wikipedia, and how difficult it may or might not be to solve that problem (hint: bots), means nothing if it is not a reliable source. Arguing that other people have used it, so it should continue to be used, is a terrible argument that won't get you anywhere here. What you should be doing is working to find a better, more reliable source. - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@Adolphus79: I never said that the sources are reliable (although Dave Leip's atlas looks to be, with ourcampaigns being much more dubious). I did say that it would be very immensely hard and tedious to scrub all of the pages that use these sources as references, whether it be for data or for county-wide maps, and then go back, find reliable sources, and insert them into the pages as replacements. I would bet that every county page in the entire U.S. cites either ourcampaigns.com or Dave's atlas as sources for their presidential election results, and it would be extremely hard to delete all that data, and find replacement sources. Again, not saying that I am against it (I am fully in favor of using reliable sources), but I'm also not going to volunteer to complete it. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Can I have the results I added that you reverted back to their pages? I didn’t revert them but I’m asking for permission because I really didn’t make up these results and I don’t want anymore trouble. TylerKutschbach (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Aggregator websites (and/or parent companies) like Breitbart News Network are not, whereas their published works are. For example, Gannett is not italicized, but USA Today (the newspaper they publish) is. When in doubt, you can click the wikilink and see if it is italicized on it's Wikipedia article. - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
OK, but the Vanity Fair source seems to be referring to the published work. And Wikipedia articles are often inconsistently formatted. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Your linked definition even says "a publication or broadcast organization" (as in the company that produces a publication or broadcast), not the publication itself. I can't find any evidence of an actual "publication" (magazine, newspaper, etc.), even on the Breitbart article and their website. I see mention of "articles" being "published" on the website, but that is not the same as having a "published work". Feel free to open a RfC on this, but from what I can find, it is a news agency (a company), not a publication. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
It's both. "...a publication or broadcast organization" means either a publication or the organization publishing it can be an "outlet". A "publication" is any published work, whether online, in print, on film, etc. For MoS purposes, a news site like Breitbart.com is a published work. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I would be tempted to remove Breitbart from that sentence anyway; it's not actually mentioned in the source, just linked - now normally we'd use the link as a source, but we can't because Breitbart is blacklisted. There must be other conservative sites that have commented on the issue that we could include instead? Black Kite (talk)00:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Vanity Fair says, That led to praise from far-right outlet Brietbart [sic] for 'refusing to buckle and bow to the woke social media.' They misspelled the name of the site, that's all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that even the in the cited article, VF italicized the other publications, but chose NOT to italicize Breitbart in their mention... if nothing else, shouldn't we always cite what the source says not what they mean? - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Considering the aforementioned misspelling, I wouldn't necessarily think that was a deliberate choice. And the meaning of a source is a legitimate consideration even when not directly stated. That said, sources often don't italicize the names of news websites. We still do because we have our own MoS. Italicizing Breitbart (the website) serves to distinguish it from people named Breitbart, including the founder of the site itself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Or... we could just avoid it completely by changing our article to "one source", since the cited VF article doesn't say anything about other sources making that statement... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
That seems quite a bit less informative. Not sure why we would intentionally make the sentence more vague than necessary. The source also mentions glowing write-ups from conservative-leaning publications that praised her for standing up to 'bullies', linking to a piece on The Federalist. The statement I added to Carano's bio was meant to summarize both this and the Breitbart reference. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Your request contains a substantial argument in favor of one or more sides of the issue. Therefore it is not a "brief, neutral statement" as required per WP:RFCOPEN. Furthermore I never said that all variations of the name should be in italics. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I never claimed you said that. But it is a fact that between the conversation here, and your edit to the article, you have italicized almost every instance of the word (except as the individual's name) without discrimination. Do whatever you want, I'm not willing to argue with you about it anymore, that's why I posted the RfC. - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Regardless, you argued for your own position in the RfC statement. You can take a position in an RfC you posted, but the opening statement itself should be neutral. You don't have to respond to me, but you should adjust the wording of the RfC accordingly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Assuming Do whatever you want implies permission to edit your comment, I've moved it below the initial question & options you gave for the RfC. I added some boldface but didn't change any wording. Feel free to revert/adjust if you don't like it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi there! Been a long time. I'm glad you're considering helping out the admin corps; I think we could always use the help. Regarding adminship, it seems to me that there's a bigger emphasis these days on knowing your specific niche in the 'pedia. Besides being broadly familiar with the three major administrative functions (blocks, deletions, and protection), there's a lot of value placed on specializing in a particular administrative environment, because it gives people a window to see what you're like in action. Besides this, demonstrating that you can collaborate well with others, read well, articulate well, and follow protocol well is vital, which is one of the reasons why content creation is so highly valued in RFA. So I would ask you...do you have a particular niche that you feel well established in, and how's your content creation? bibliomaniac1517:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, my recent activity places me most in the areas of minor copyedits across a broad range of articles. As I click on a random article, or look up an actor in a movie, or am reading something I am personally interested in reading, whenever I find an error, I fix it. Mostly punctuation, spacing, typos, linking, etc. The administrative functions that I would most use would be for blatant vandalism (AIV) control (an IP (schoolkid) making joke edits on multiple pages, even after warnings, needs a quick 1 week ban, I can take care of it myself instead of reporting them and then continuing to revert all of their edits until someone else finally blocks them), same with RfPP, a little UAA, some 3RR, and maybe a few others I'm not thinking of right now. I have no intention at all of dealing with anything controversial, only the most cut-and-dry of cases, just to help alleviate backlogs and save someone else a little work on occasion. And I would obviously read up on any involved guidelines/policies before taking any action (current blocking policies, etc.). I'm not going to argue policy, I'm not going to take any questionable actions with the tools, I'm not going to abuse anything, I am just a well established editor with a clean history of keeping calm and staying out of trouble, asking to have access to the tools to solve the few minor instances I come across on my own. And occasionally scroll down RfPP, AIV, etc., to see if there are any other, once again very open and shut, reports that I could knock off the backlog. I am also open to reading up on the policies regarding other spaces I might not be as knowledgeable about, if I find something else that I could help with. I do have some experience with AfD, but would personally not be comfortable closing anything but the most SNOWy of discussions.
As far as content creation, User:Adolphus79/ArticleGallery will provide a list of the articles I have created. The bulk of my work is purely janitorial (minor copyedits to other articles as I read them), but there are a few articles on my list that I am rather proud of.
I know a lot has changed since I last ran, and I would be happy to go through another coaching session to make sure I am up to speed on the most current concerns. - Adolphus79 (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Cathal Ó Searcaigh
Hi and thanks for reverting the latest edit to this article by a very insistent edit warrior. Vandals tend to post unfounded allegations of paedophilia on the page every so often, based on a controversy which became national news in Ireland over 10 years ago. The matter was thoroughly investigated at the time, there was no evidence, and no charges were laid. I saw the edit before you reverted it and was inclined to let it stand. He makes a more reasonable argument for his edit on this occasion, and I can see some logic in his position: including a statement for the 'defence' arguably unbalances the argument just as much as allegations of guilt would. If the revert is reversed, I'd be inclined to leave it -- on the grounds I've stated, and also on the grounds that it may placate an editor who obviously has a strong emotional investment in the argument. But you may be right not to allow such a persistent character any leeway! Dmhball~enwiki (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into arguing whether or not he (the article subject) did anything specific. I reverted mostly due to the removal of references, as without any at all we have no verifiability. The last time, the IP editor in question got reported and blocked purely due to breaking WP:3RR, not because of the content dispute. I think both sides need to take this discussion to the article's talk page and come to a consensus regarding the article content and the way the information is presented. Simply deleting a section, especially a well sourced section, is not the way to go. - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I may be wrong but I think it was you who previously blocked the anonymous 37.228.200.43 for edit warring, distressing because what he was posting, and is posting again now after less than 3 months, I know to be scurrilous libel. Allegations against Cathal Ó Searcaigh were made more than 10 years ago, they were investigated in Ireland and Nepal, and no evidence against him was found, but it did his reputation desperate harm. Just now 37.228.200.43 has repeated his libel and I have reverted it yet again.
He won't give up. I have tried taking a reasonable approach and and recall reaching out to his talk page, but he did not reply. His talk page shows no trace of my attempt, I don't know why or how. Please consider doing something if possible -- however it may be a matter of, yet again, waiting for the almost inevitable further warfare. I'm beginning to wonder whether my eternal vigilance is worth it; maybe it would be better to remove the article altogether? Dmhball~enwiki (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't see that IP having been blocked before, but I remember the previous situation. Unfortunately, being a different IP, and only making the 2 edits to the page so far, there is little that can be done. I suggest reverting the edit, warning them on their talk page, and reporting to AIV if it continues. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Julia, thank you for responding. Adding multiple COI userboxes to your user page does not answer my original question. What is your relationship with The American Prospect? If you are an employee of the company, we need to know, especially if you are being paid to edit. As far as the edits that I reverted, you injected false information (specifically this edit and this one, where USAA was not even mentioned in the article you cited), and/or content that was completely unrelated to the articles that you edited, therefore those edits will not be restored. It seems a little odd that as a new user, literally every edit you have made has added links to The American Prospect, whether it was related to the subject of the article or not, and continuing this pattern could be seen as spam by some editors without an explanation. - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
About images for Colt 1889
Hi. As I understand from here: https://www.frfrogspad.com/colt1889.htm all models identified by M1889/M1895 or M1892/1894 are the same 1889 Model just manufactured after that year, so, I think we can in good faith assume that all those images represent correctly the Colt M1889. Best regards. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Yes, I also read the Fr. Frog website initially, but that is a personal website/blog, with no citations for his information on the firearm (the reference at the bottom of the page is only citing the ammunition data). Whereas, if you visit the FBI Archive article where that specific image is taken from, it reads "The weapon is a Model 1892 Army and Navy Colt double-action, six-shot revolver made in 1895." Our own Colt M1892 article even mentions the story of this weapon specifically, as well as later modifications in 1894 and 1895 for the Army and Navy respectively (referenced from the Standard Catalog of Colt firearms). I can't find any sources (besides Fr. Frog's website) that mention a "M1889/M1895" model, and Colt has no information about ever manufacturing any revolvers designated M1894 or M1895. Lastly, a Google search for "Colt M1985" brings up no hits regarding a revolver (only the machine gun of that designation), and another Google search for "Roosevelt's M1895" brings back only hits about his Winchester Model 1895 rifle (or his (this) M1892 revolver that was manufactured in 1895). I'm afraid the Fr. Frog website (and therefore the file name and description) is simply incorrect. - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Even that article says "Theodore Roosevelt, wielding a Model 1892 A&N". Again, every other source available (besides Fr. Frog's) claims it was an M1892, not an M1889 (or M1895). Yes, if you look at pictures, they are visually essentially the same firearm, with only minor (mostly internal) modifications over the years. But we (Wikipedia) need to be accurate in our statement, if the firearm in the image is specifically an M1892 (according to the original source of the image, with ample reliable sources to back it up), then we can not say it is something else based on another person's unsourced website. Please, I am not arguing the differences in the models, I am only arguing the accuracy of our statement regarding the firearm in that image. For example, if I took a picture of a Colt M1991, and uploaded it to Wikipedia, we can not claim the firearm in the image is a "Colt M1911". They are essentially the exact same firearm (visually identical), except a few minor internal changes, but the firearm in the image is not an M1911. You have done a lot of good work on assorted firearms related articles, and you clearly know your stuff, but I hope you understand my point. - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I'm curious why you deleted my additions to the notable people section of both Carey and Findlay Ohio. The man I listed has founded a chapter of the national F3 fitness group in Columbus Ohio (for which I provided a Wikipedia link), and has enriched many lives. I look forward to your thoughts. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baraboo624 (talk • contribs)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We have a guideline for names added to the "Notable people" section of town pages, generally the person needs to be notable enough to have their own article to be added to the list. If the person in question is indeed notable enough (see WP:PEOPLE) for their own article, I would suggest you create the article, then add them to the list. Feel free to ask if you need any help or have any other questions. Happy editing! - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Happy Birthday!
Have a happy birthday, Adolphus79! Supplied by the Wikipedia Birthday Committee, have one free cake! Enjoy! Best wishes to you on your special day!
Thanks for being my first welcome and early help on Wikipedia. I really appreciate all the answers you gave me when I was super concerned about my userpage (I hope I wasn't too annoying about anything).
P.S. I saw this the other day, but I am not an admin, so I can't do an anonblock for you. My suggestion is to just stay logged in, and you will not be effected by anything the IP editors do. - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
I also don't appreciate the "final warning" as that sounds like you're trying to threaten me for making mistakes. deity02:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
The final warning is because you have received multiple warnings regarding your disruptive editing, but have chosen to delete them from your user talk page. And these are clearly not mistakes, when your edit summary shows you meant to make the edits. When you remove content stating "that is not what naib means", when the naib article clearly agrees with the original content, that constitutes a disruptive edit. - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
the naib article is for the arabic word, not the dune terminology. but please keep threatening me I’m shivering in my boots! deity03:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for improving the Cathal Ó Searcaigh photo caption – I agree it was a bit too informal (being a 'witty' reference to one of his books). However I'm going to edit it slightly, for the very good reason that the Ó in many Irish names is not a middle initial, but an integral part of the surname (a bit like Mac in other Gaelic surnames). The anglicisation of Ó Searcaigh is 'Sharkey', which native speakers generally avoid. The Irish Gaelic equivalent of referring to 'Sharkey' would be either 'Ó Searcaigh' or 'an Searcach'. The former is less confusing for non Irish speakers, so I'm putting that in.
Sorry for the long explanation! Dmhball~enwiki (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Duchy of the Lagoan Isles until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
You can able to google search about this person : 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 page : 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 – 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
.jpg)
