Adolphus79

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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

Wikimedia Foundation

This is the User talk page for Adolphus79

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

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

Eminem

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

@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)

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

née

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

Stalking

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

DOGE Employees (30)

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

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

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

UNDUE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

50501

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

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

Edit request re. Black History Month

• Follow up with the addition to Observance by Region:

Jamaica

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

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

References

Happy First Edit Day!

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

Proposed deletion of Ironton Junction, Ohio

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

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

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

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

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

List of counties in Florida reverted edit

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

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

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

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

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

Taser August 20, 2025 Edits Reverted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Birthday!

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

Susana de Sousa Dias

Hi Adolphus79,

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

Hope to hear from you soon!

Best,

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

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

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

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

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

RE:Welcome

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

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

Fordlândia Panacea

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

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

No Kings Protest Source

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

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

MOS Linking

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

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

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

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

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

Reset and apology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mentor?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Winchester Model 70

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

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

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

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

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

Temporary account IP viewer granted

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cyberpunk Red: Combat Zone reverted change

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

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

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

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

Michael (2026 film) edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard discussions

You may be interested in this discussion. I know you interacted with this user before. User_talk:Archon785#November_2025

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Archon785%E2%80%99s-_disruptive_patterns,_disregard_for_rules,_and_an_unnecessarily_aggressive_tone_that_approaches_personal_attacks. Cinaroot (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, but I see it was moot before I even logged in. - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Archon

I suggest disengaging. I don't foresee anything useful coming from continuing discussion right now. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I had already walked away, there is no point in arguing with a brick wall when there are other users standing in line. LOL - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Recent edits

Just becouse the edits i added to pages are not mentioned on the articles yet, doesnt mean its made up nonsense. google them up and find out. 会黄 22:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

If you are adding a link in a list of firearms, and the page you linked to makes no mention of firearms, that is not acceptable. And telling me to google what you are adding to Wikipedia is a failure of WP:BURDEN. This is what you chose as your first communication with anyone here? - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey Adolfus

Go and fuck yourself

PS: Your face knocks me sick eeeewww!!!!!!!!!!!!! - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 会黄 (talk • contribs)

Johnuniq, can we do something about the personal attacks now coming from this user on both their talk page and now mine? - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. Delete this section if you like. I left them with talk page access. I suggest that you not respond if they use their talk page to continue. Contact me or any other admin. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. It's not the first time I've been called a nazi or a fascist, or someone related my username to Hitler, and I doubt it will be the last. It's just sad that when this user finally decided to speak, this was the result. - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

World Scholars Cup

WSC YuMmYDONUT2016 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a question about World Scholar's Cup? - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Its about a user that edited the WSC page. YuMmYDONUT2016 (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

What about the user that edited the page? - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Um, I think i spotted this user talking 2 asilvering and they created a topic called stupid is what you are. Anyways, i spotted some false info. YuMmYDONUT2016 (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure they did, we all get called names by immature vandals that don't like following the rules around here. As a matter of fact, the user in the section directly above this was calling me a nazi and changing my username to Adolf because they didn't like having to follow the rules, and even went to another project to continue to nonsense before we blocked them. What is the "false info" you spotted? Without any details, I can't do anything to fix the problem. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, shucks, you're already blocked... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello Adolphus79, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 09:19, 25 December 2025 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 09:19, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:18, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Adolphus79!

Happy New Year!

Adolphus79,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Volten001 ^☎ 06:45, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 06:45, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

MOS related query:

Would you feel comfortable being the one to ping in an editor who is very much prone to WP:WL style interactions concerning nuanced topics in a manner I find rather distasteful? If your mediation and time commitment zone has been fully occupied with your response to my ping asking for your opion (wonderfully written for early post-regalia morning I might add) I insist you say so and I'll shepherd things myself. I know I'm asking a lot and you've already gone above and beyond.

Jasphetamine (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I think you are asking if you can ping me in the event of other future conflicts? In which case, yes, that is fine. Although if it is a case that has already progressed to Wikilawyering, sometimes it is better to just file a report on the appropriate noticeboard. Time and commitment are both relative here on Wikipedia, and I have been known to just kinda wander off on occasion, but I do try to make a point of responding whenever someone leaves a message. - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

2026 Page Edit

I just wanted to say I agree with your edit, and thank you for taking time out of your day to make it! This was my first time editing on Wikipedia, and it seems like a really underappreciated part of how we share knowledge online. :) ~2026-80441 (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Check out the massage I just left on your talk page, it has more information about editing here and registering an account so you don't have to edit as an anonymous temporary account. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message here anytime! - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

citation validation

Sir with all respect, I'm clearing the confusion between the sultan Yusuf Ali keenadiid and his son who also was a sultan Ali Yusuf. thanks for your efforts. Shiriid (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

If you are talking about this edit, I hate to say it, but you failed. That made no sense at all. - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

do you know these people, and have enough information or you just made as you see it it was beautiful and make sense into your own view Taxarhorane (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Are you replying to my comment or Shiriid's? I'm not sure what you are asking. - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

i was replaying to shiriid, but end up getting on you Taxarhorane (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Adolphus79,

Thanks for letting me know. The family tree that I included depicts a well-known line, which is widely acknowledged and recognized by historians as well as from the community at large. Having said that, of course, on Wikipedia, it must be supported by credible sources that have now been published.

I am currently evaluating available references and either going back and properly citing them or reworking this information for it to be more in line with proper sourcing.

Appreciate the reminder and your work on the article. Taxarhorane (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Sadly, a lot of that article needs better sourcing, and there needs to be some kind of notability shown for us to include a random family tree. Why do we need that? Were each of those people notable, or does the lineage mean something? I admit I know nothing about clan politics, but as a Wikipedian in general, I question whether it is WP:UNDUE. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you.

Hey, I'm sorry for the nuisance I caused, and thank you for reminding me from laziness. Seems like I needed a trout slapping. Mean while, here's a cup of Wikipediholism fuel, with a 4oz box of Oatly. Whether it is decaf is up to you :) Cheers! 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 17:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

We've all been there, I promise there are no hard feelings. Even I have had to be reminded of rules I didn't know about (or changed since I last read them) in my time here. (There are probably even recent examples just a few sections up!) I highly doubt that anyone fully reads all of the the 5 pillars, the entire manual of style, and every single policy and guideline before they start editing, I know I certainly didn't. I also doubt that anyone knows them all at any given time. You just learn as you go. I apologize for getting a little sarcastic at the end, I was only having some fun matching your energy. Good luck, and happy editing!

P.S. I prefer my coffee in Mountain Dew cans. :) - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

+1 to using carbonated drinks for caffeine! My choice being Coke Zero.

A fun fact: Mountain Dew is one of the last soft drinks to be sweetened solely by sugar, here in (mainland) China. Everything else from Coca/Pepsi (the corporations) switched to high fructose syrup over the last decade (or two). That's probably also why Mt. Dew cost ~2/3 more than Cola. :) 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 18:39, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Worth it... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Source for Norridge is its electoral history

It's hard to restate maps, but it's basically the title. Generally the enclaves of Harwood Heights and Norridge vote alike. Said electoral history is visible on Wikipedia, mainly on the Chicagoland article and in any Illinois election page that offers precinct results. Starbeam2 (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a reliable source to cite for the content, it falls under original research and fails WP:BURDEN. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Do the sourced maps count as reliable? I generally just restate the data. Starbeam2 (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "sourced maps" you are talking about, in this edit, you added no sources at all, and there is zero other discussion or sources (or maps) about the political leaning of the community or how they have voted in the past. Are you hallucinating sources that aren't there? Also, you made the same style edit on several other pages on the 7th that I just noticed while looking at your contribs. If you did not provide a source for the content on those pages either, I will be reverting those edits directly. - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll just copy the sources from the maps on Wikipedia I see from now on, I apologize for leaving them off. Starbeam2 (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

That's all we ask. - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2026

• In the media: Global powers see Wikipedia as fundamental target for manipulation
  Attempted Wikipedia shenanigans apparent from Epstein, AI, various governments.

• News and notes: Discussions open for the next WMF Annual Plan
  Plus, WikiFlix going places, steady progress on older FAs and other news from the Wikimedia world.

• Serendipity: Maintenance crews continue to slog through Wikipedia's oldest Featured Articles
  Hundreds of old FAs have been triaged since project began, but thousands remain — and they need reviewers.

• Disinformation report: Epstein's obsessions
  The sex offender's attempts to whitewash Wikipedia run deeper than we first thought.

• Technology report: Wikidata Graph Split and how we address major challenges
  A personal perspective on a major update to the Wikimedia social machine.

• Traffic report: Deaths, killings, films, and the Olympics
  I'll have the usual!

• Opinion: Incoming Incurables
  A poem for Wikipedia Day 2026.

• Crossword: Pop quiz
  Sharpen your pencil. How well do you really know Wikipedia?

• Comix: herculean
  efforts.

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Censorship

stop censorship on trump presendcy article ~2026-12004-70 (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Stop using it as a forum to cry, instead of using it to improve the article. Also, stop using socks before you get blocked. Replying to yourself from a different TA is also against the rules. Follow the rules, or find somewhere else to complain. - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Your edit in fascism page

With respect to your edit on fascism which reverted my change to the sentence:

While the theories of "new consensus" authors have proven to be very influential, they have also failed to establish a historiographic consensus and received criticism from other scholars, often as a static and isolated from context "ideal type" or set of ideas disregarding the dynamic, contradictory and syncretic nature of fascism and its context.

I would like to explain: I found the original grammatically unintelligible. Don't you?
Simplifying it ought, but does not, make sense:

While [they] have <action>, they <action> and received criticism [...] often as a static and isolated from context ideal type [...].

Proposals:
"...often as a static and context-isolated ideal type..."
"...often as static, isolated from context, and an ideal type..."
Moreover, I was concerned that the lengthiness of the orignal sentence impedes readers' grasping of the grammatical structre , and perhaps, your/others non-grasping of what (appears to me) as boggling unreadable sentences (as seen from what I see as your acceptance of the sentence, and my non-acceptance, and the dissonance bewteen them). Too many things in the same breath. For this reason, I had wanted t o break the (30+ words) long sentence into shorter sentences, which you had respectfully reverted. Hence,

While the theories of "new consensus" authors have proven to be very influential, they have also failed to establish a historiographic consensus. They have received scholarly criticism, often for presenting a static and context-isolated "ideal type" (or set of ideas) disregarding the dynamic, contradictory and syncretic nature of fascism and its context.

Nevertheless, I then dared not remove this entirely ( hence preserved it in an invisible comment)because I do not know what went in the original wikipedian's mind.... precisely because of the incomprehensibility of it. I can only edit it by wager derived from my university courses on ideal types, and studies of the writing of history. But I am open to changing my personal policy to gray areas if you find it overly cautious. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict):The reason I reverted it was because you created a duplicate comment that is word-for-word the same except the last couple words that you added and are now admitting are original research. As soon as you wrote "I can only edit it based on my assumptions derived from my university courses" instead of "I can only edit it based on what reliable sources say", you should have realized you were wrong. Also, do not assume to know what other editors can or can't understand, or try to make claims of big grammatical changes when it was 99% the same word-for-word and your only real change was separating it into two sentences. There was no reason for the comment, either you know what you are writing is correct and supported by the sources, or you are doing it wrong, there is no need at all to save an invisible comment with the original content. I made that clear in my edit summary, you were reverted for creating a redundant duplicate statement, but I guess you didn't understand. Consider this your first warning for adding original research. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:HouseBlaster submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Adolphus79 is a gnome extraordinaire who is sorely lacking in recognition for his long and distinguished service for the project. He is a valued member of his own personal welcoming committee and can be often be found showing newcomers the ropes of editing. He has created scores of articles, including Jonathan Alder. He even created the article about Kesha, back when she was an upcoming singer/songwriter signed to RCA Records! But above all, he does his utmost to treat every editor with kindness and empathy, and that is in short supply on this project—from patiently encouraging editors who accidentally ran afoul of one of our many rules or explaining how consensus is formed, to everything in between. You are awesome, Adolphus, and thank you for everything.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Fifteen Year Society

Adolphus79

Editor of the Week for the week beginning March 8, 2026

Adolphus79 is a gnome extraordinaire placed in recognition for his long and distinguished service. A valued member of the welcoming committee often found showing newcomers the ropes of editing. Created scores of articles such as the article about Kesha, back when she was an upcoming singer/songwriter signed to RCA Records! He does his utmost to treat every editor with kindness and empathy, from patiently encouraging editors who accidentally ran afoul of one of our many rules or explaining how consensus is formed, to everything in between.

Recognized for

long and distinguished service

Notable work

Jonathan Alder

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 17:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you Buster7, and thank you HouseBlaster for the completely unexpected nomination! I don't know what to say, I am very happy to find out that my work here does not go as unnoticed as I thought. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Of course, Adolphus—I sincerely appreciate everything you do for Wikipedia :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

One minor note, I'm not actually a member of the welcoming committee (not signed up at least). I just think it is our duty to make sure new editors don't have red talk pages, and the welcome template is such a quick and easy introduction to the community behind the articles. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that rationale strengthens my belief that you deserve this award! Should we correct the record in the nomination? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

If you are asking me, I don't care. I am still over the moon just being recognized, even if there is a minor clerical error in the description. :) - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Buster7, am I allowed/supposed to change the "15 year society" to the "20 year society" when I hit that milestone in another 2 months? Or leave it as "I was a member of the 15 when I was awarded this honor"? - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC) Nevermind, I just looked and saw everyone has a personalized image there, I will leave it alone... thank you again! - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

If you remind me when you reach the milestone I will be glad to make the change. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 20:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Buster7: After I saw that everyone has a different personalized image, I wasn't too concerned about it. I asked the original question before I had even looked at the EOTW page or any details, and only because I am less than 2 months from the bump. This is the image you chose for me, and I am only 15 years currently (when it was awarded), so it would probably look weird to have the 20-year image when I wasn't quite 20 at the time it was awarded. Like I told HouseBlaster above, I really don't care one way or the other (y'all are the nominator and EmCee if you want to make any changes), I am just happy with the recognition. It could say "he blends into the background quite nicely", and I would still be floating on Cloud Nine today simply from the honor... :) - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Claridge Hi Tec article citations

The Claridge article on wikipedia is full of incorrect or missing information.

For example, the article says that the ZL-9 is "unknown." It's not unknown, two came up for auction recently.

My edits to the Claridge page are based on original Claridge promotional flyers and price lists that I own, a 1991 Handguns Magazine article and A LOT of recent auctions on gunbroker.

How would I go about referencing these sources? They are not on the internet anywhere. Should I upload them to wikipedia somehow?

How would I delete the incorrect information?

The wiki article says that the S-45 is a 45acp variant. The only reference to any 45 claridge is a listing on the first page of the ownwers manual. But they are not mentioned in any other place, not on Claridge's price lists, not in Claridge's promotional flyers, not in the 1991 Handguns magazine article. Obviously they were something that was intended, but never made. If you do a google search for "45acp Claridge" you come up with nothing. So how would their non-existence be established?

Also, what if the existing wiki article references are clearly wrong? The article says that the gun was chambered in 40S&W, 38 super, etc. which is referenced from Ref. (2). That reference is just a disordered jumble of nonsense. How would you delete or superseed that reference?

I'm a first timer, so if there is a tutorial I would be glad to read it.

Thanks Bruce Zoolander (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Bruce Zoolander, as I said in the edit summary, "I have a flyer" is sadly not a reliable source that any other reader could instantly check to verify the content. The burden is on you to provide a citation whenever you add content so that any future reader could verify it is accurate. You can generally find old magazine articles online, especially for a publication the size of Handguns. And even if the source is not easily available online, you do still need to at least cite your addition. Auction listings are definitely not reliable sources, I could list something for sale and say whatever I wanted in the listing, there is zero accountability there. The content currently in the article being so badly lacking in verifiable citations is not either of our faults, someone else should have done something about those edits when they were made. If anything in the current article is incorrect, feel free to remove it as unsourced/original research/wrong, but any new content added needs to be cited. That's kinda what keeps our little project an encyclopedia instead of Facebook (haha). Another editor also left a welcome message on your talk page a few days ago, which includes a few links to help with the basics. If you have any more questions, or need help citing the sources you do have, let me know. Happy editing! - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned the auctions is because the auctions always feature lots of detailed photos. Because gun collectors pay more for a gun if they can see every inch of it. 20+ pictures of a handgun is a lot of information. I often download pictures from auctions for my own future reference.

The wiki page says the ZL-9 is "unknown", but I have one sitting in my gun safe. So now my task is to create a reference somehow. How do I do that?

Since there is no external reference, could I just upload a photo or photos of it to the wiki page and use that as the reference?

How about the original flyers and price lists from Claridge? Could they be posted to the wiki page? Or do they have to be hosted externally?

As I said, the wiki Blue Book reference is really bad. You say that it can be removed as "unsourced/original research/wrong." So just remove the reference and the associated nonsense on the wiki page?

I thought you were the author of the Claridge page, so I didn't say it, but the wiki page on the Claridge is the worst one I have seen on wikipedia. I will be happy to help fix it if I can figure out how. Thanks for your help, it's appreciated. Bruce Zoolander (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I honestly don't know if you would be allowed to simply upload the flyers, etc. as images to use, you would need to check the copyrights on the media (is it public domain, or are we allowed to use it?) and maybe ask someone who is more knowledgeable about that aspect. I would start by checking out WP:Copyright assistance or asking at WP:Media copyright questions. Trust me, I fully understand the "I have one in my safe" rationale all too well (and have even uploaded a few images of my collection), but have had to learn to avoid any kind of personal experiences or original research myself. If you want to take a photo of your ZL-9 and release that image, then I know we can use it, but I don't think other people's photos from gunbroker would be allowed (we obviously can't get their permission to use). Obviously, at that point you could remove the "unknown" statement (as a "here is proof it at least does exist" image), but would need then an RS to add any written content about it. I know it's a little annoying, but that is what keeps us legal and (mostly) encyclopedic.

Also, if the content is already sourced, you would need to check the source before removing the content (even if it is not readily available online). If it is covered in the cited source, then there is no reason to remove the content or source. If the content is not mentioned in the cited source, or is not sourced at all, then it can be removed (as long as the removal is not challenged, which is a bridge we can cross when we come to it). Luckily, the Blue Book is an annual publication and a fairly easy source to find, if you are questioning any content that is citing it. If I hadn't just gotten rid of my own copies last year, I would have already checked it before writing this. Just remember, we can't write anything here that is not explicitly written in the source (see WP:SYNTH). I hope this helps (or, at least, doesn't make you think we don't want your help in cleaning up the article), and feel free to ask if you need anything else. - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Not to grind the issue to death, but it seems like the guy who originally wrote the Claridge wikipedia page has an inordinate amount of power.

And the result is that the Claridge wikipedia page is easily the worst wiki page that I have ever seen. It's really bad.

1. The guy wrote stuff that is referenced to the Blue Book website, which is full of ludicrously incorrect information.

2. The guy wrote un-referenced stuff that is completely wrong, because he doesn't know anything about the subject.

3. The guy did not know some information, and instead of not saying anything, he declared it to be "unknown." So now that is the official wiki status of that particular information.

4. The guy doesn't distinguish between the properties of the Goncz guns and Claridge guns in the summary, so it's very misleading.

The guy who wrote this mess of vague notions now has no burden of proof at all, but anyone who challenges it has to provide meticulous 3rd party documentation that has been published.

I have an official Claridge price list that shows every single thing that they had for sale, with the model numbers and descriptions. But the only way to use it is to somehow get permission from a dead guy (Joe Claridge).

I have personally seen ALL of the stuff that on the price list. And own some of it. That also doesn't count for anything.

The biggest problem is that most references show only POSITIVE information. A magazine article will say that the Claridge comes in 9mm, but it won't say, "Oh, by the way, it doesn't come in 45ACP." So from now to the end of time, wikipedia will proudly list a 45ACP Claridge that doesn't exist.

The wikipedia page says this: "These pistols and carbines all came with... either a black aluminum lower frame, or with a silver stainless steel lower frame."

That statement is 100% completely wrong. The guns were always silver stainless steel or blued stainless steel. Except for the AS-9 and the Z models are aluminum. There are two AS-9s for sale on gunbroker right now.

The guy didn't know anything and now it's set in stone forever. The wiki system completely failed in this case. The page is objectively, provably wrong but it cannot be changed. Bruce Zoolander (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

It is nearly impossible for me to know the intentions of the editor who originally created the article (or their gender, *wink wink*), other than that their initial edit summary said "I plan to improve it; cite sources, etc." But that was in 2006, the article seems to have mostly gone unimproved since then, and that editor hasn't even made any edits since 2018. Luckily, nothing is "set in stone" here, articles can always be updated, corrected, deleted, etc. (and I already told you that you are free to delete anything incorrect or unsourced in the article), and the system did not "completely fail" just because no one else came along to fix the article since it was originally written. If anything, think of it as "the other readers over the last 20 years failed you, the present-day reader, for not doing something about the glaring errors sooner" (human error). Reading the original version of the article, my educated guess is that they may have mostly copied the content from a user's manual, sales brochure, or a now-defunct website. After 20 years, there really isn't much reason to argue or harp about that though, it's just time to fix it.

As I previously stated, I fully support you giving the article a major overhaul, just make sure that your content is properly sourced and follows our Policies & Guidelines, Manual of Style, etc., so that 20 years from now another user doesn't have the same arguments that you do today. Think of it more as you "found an error in the encyclopedia that has gone overlooked for 20 years" (like finding a punctuation or grammatical error in an old paper book), and will now have bragging rights to your friends for completely re-writing an article (hopefully, only the first of many in your new wiki-career)... ;) - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I just re-read our whole exchange here and I have a question.

The blue book webpage that is referenced in the article is just complete nonsense. Like it says the Claridge came in 40S&W, which is definitely not true.

The 1991 Handguns article says Claridges come in 9mm. Just 9mm. No mention of any other caliber. Can I use the Handguns article to refute the blue book webpage?

It's obvious that Claridge had a hand in the Handguns article, because Claridge made a big color flyer that uses the photos from the article.

Hopefully I will find the article online somewhere, so it can be linked.

Also, the wiki page is generally not well organized, it's confusing. Can I clean up the writing a little? I do a lot of expository writing. When I was doing my original edits, that got rejected, I tried to clean up language a little to make it read better.

I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around what is allowed. Probably over-thinking it.

Thanks for your help. Bruce Zoolander (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I googled and read about how to challenge a bad wiki reference, becasue I don't want to be a pest, but I don't see how I can prove something doesn't exist.

apparently you can tag a reference as "dubious", but then what? Bruce Zoolander (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many other ways I can tell you to go ahead and remove anything that is outright wrong or not supported by a cited ref (we can only include content that is supported by a ref). If you just re-read our whole conversation, then half of this comment was rather redundant. I have also told you that you can still cite the Handguns article, even if you can't find a copy online. I'm trying to be helpful here, but it seems you want to keep complaining about it instead of fixing it, I don't know what else to say. - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I understand all that.

My question was what I'm supposed to do about a reference that is clearly incorrect. What is the process for it to be challenged or removed? What makes on reference be more valued than another?

I'm not complaining, I'm explaining that the blue book reference is grossly faulty. It seems like it would be better so simply remove it than try to refute it.

Thanks for your help, no need to reply. I'll figure it out. Bruce Zoolander (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Then remove it, and the content supported by it. - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I have been doing a lot of hunting for genuinely solid sources of data.

I found a couple of very good ones:

1. The June 1991 "Handguns" article that I mentioned before.

Gun magazines have two kinds of articles in them: filler, like "The 10 Greatest Deer Cartridges Ever!" and articles that the manufacturers pay them to write as advertising.

The information in the Handguns article clearly came from Claridge, it uses all the same data and promo photos from Claridge's sales flyer.

Plus the author did a range trip (with photos).

So it's a very good source. If you are interested, I would be glad to email it to you.

2. The "Gun Digest Catalogue" editions from 1986 to 1994.

Gun Digest is a catalogue that lists almost all guns for sale in the USA, it's basically a giant wad of gun specs and retail prices.

Obviously, the photos and specs come from the manufacturers. Note that the data changes from one year to the next as the gun models are changed by the manufacturers.

So it's a solid reference.

Based on these sources, I will proceed to methodically revise the article.

If copywriting permits, I will upload the Handguns article to The Internet Archive in order to create a live reference.

Also, the writing of the wiki page is a little awkward, so I will make some minor "readability" edits to make it less awkward and confusing.

I wrote the above to let you know my intentions in advance. (I figured an explanation would be in order since the previous edit I made (and the boatload of griping) displayed a lack of understanding of the wiki policies, etc.)

Thanks again for your help. Bruce Zoolander (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I used to have a subscription to Handguns a while back, before I started editing here (as well as Guns & Ammo, SWAT weapons, the NRA's American Rifleman, and a couple others), but sadly did not keep the back issues (I donated them to my local VFW to be sent overseas for our deployed soldiers to read). I never expected to be editing an encyclopedia in the future, and I wish I had kept all those old issues to use as sources today. - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 March 2026

• Interview: Bernadette Meehan, new Wikimedia Foundation CEO
  Part 2.

• News and notes: Security testing unleashes computer worm on Meta-wiki
  Dormant worm awakes; a sketchy archiving site struck; ether burns.

• Special report: What actually happened during the Wikimedia security incident?
  A horrifying exploit took place, which could have had catastrophic and far-reaching consequences if used maliciously; instead, it seems to have happened by accident and was used for childish vandalism. How did this happen, and what did the script actually do?

• In the media: Indonesian government blocks Wikimedia logins; archive site scoured from Wikipedia after owner runs malware
  As well as controversy over LLM translations.

• Recent research: To wiki, perchance to groki
  Comparisons continue.

• Obituary: Madhav Gadgil, Fredrick Brennan, Mark Miller, Chip Berlet
  Rest in peace.

• Opinion: Interface administrators and trusting trust
  Potential attacks are the logical consequence of giving a group of users unlimited control over JavaScript.

• Technology report: English Wikipedia deprecates archive.today after DDoS against blog, altered content
  After the archive site launched a DDoS campaign against a small blog in January 2026, a request for comment was started, with consensus to deprecate the site used almost 700 thousand times.

• Op-ed: Why is "Trypsin-sensitive photosynthetic activities in chloroplast membranes" cited in "List of tallest buildings in Chicago"?
  The answer is slop.

• Essay: The pursuit of a button click
  Volunteering for Wikipedia has its rewards. The thank-button, for example.

• In focus: Short descriptions: One year later
  A discussion of the challenge set forth to the Wikipedia community one year ago!

• WikiProject report: Unreferenced articles backlog drive
  Unreferenced articles in English Wikipedia - help us in the backlog drive!

• Community view: Speaking of planning ...
  The WMF planning process is underway.

• Traffic report: Over the mountain, kissing silver inlaid clouds
  Death and the Winter Olympics.

• Crossword: "It will never happen"
  Want to take a break?

• Comix: BRIEn't
  Or is it.

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Burbank, California

Burbank recorded a new record high temperature for March of 99°F. Where would I pit the citation? Thanks. ~2026-17524-29 (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the messages I left on your talk page that clearly link to citations and how to cite? Or are you just going to keep editwarring because you don't care about the rules? - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I love that you can add a ref here on my talk page, but can't be bothered when asked to do so on the article. Epic fail... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

References

Apalachee Shooting Weapon(s) Used

Are you sure it is okay to not be specific about the weapons which were used? People are then just going to come to this page, go oh just another school shooting and not be informed fully about what this student had in his backpack and on his gun? Lorazepam 58 16 (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, the sources I gave were the only ones which go in depth into the evidence, and provides visual confirmations of them. I read a lot of articles and watched a ton of videos. I know what is credible and true and what's not. You're erasing valuable information that will eventually be put back up one way or the other. Lorazepam 58 16 (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Firearms magazines (or other accessories) are not "weapons". A knife that is not involved in the attack does not belong on the list of weapons used in the attack. The article already lists the weapon used, any further content is either original research or synthesized unless it can be cited to a reliable source. Someone reading the article 10 years from now is not going to care about "what this student had in his backpack", especially if you can't cite a reliable source for that content. The burden lies with you, if your content can't be verified with reliable sources, then it is obviously not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Also, threatening to put the content "back up one way or another" without consensus is a clear violation of our rules about edit warring. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

First of all, you're only saying that I'm threatening because you let your emotions override your rationality. I got nothing to lose quite frankly. Second of all, if you haven't, other wikipedia articles related to mass killings or mass shootings in general list out all of the weapons connected with the event regardless if it was used or not. Take for example, the Isla Vista shooting, Erfurt shooting, and the Dayton Ohio shooting. Youtube videos have been, and will continue to be cited as sources especially when news organizations refuse to put livestreams/waste time reporting on "boring," generic events and/or paywall everything as the greedy ceos continue to find ways to profit off of your existence. I don't stand behind narcissism and emotional sensitivity, but if gaslighting is your game and you'd rather censor out fundamental information, then go ahead. Lorazepam 58 16 (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Starting shit with another editor on your fourth day, with under 40 edits? You got some awful big britches for a new user (unless, of course, you are not a new user at all?). Let's go through what you did wrong here. First, I'm not sure where you thought I was being emotional in my response, I answered you very simply and straight forward with an even tone and ample links to the assorted policies and guidelines governing your edit(s) (because you obviously didn't bother to read any of the links provided in my original Welcome message on your talk page). Second, using the excuse that other stuff exists will never fly around here, sorry. Third, YouTube is not a reliable source, no matter what you claim (and lying to a seasoned veteran who is trying to help you is pretty silly). Fourth, based on your statement I can see that you obviously don't even know the definition of narcissism or gaslighting, maybe you should try discussing this like an adult instead of trying (and failing) to childishly insult or bully me? Fifth, you have some obvious bias you need to overcome before you make any more ill-informed edits. Six, if the news organizations "refuse to report on "boring" generic events", then those events are clearly not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Maybe you've watched too much YouTube? Maybe you think you need to solve great wrongs, I don't know. But everything is done here through collaboration and consensus, if you can't handle someone explaining the rules to you when you came to me and asked what you did wrong, then you are probably too thin-skinned to continue doing this. Also, in the future, please do not resort to childish personal attacks when someone calmly explains what you did wrong, you need to comment on the content, not the contributor. Consider this your first warning to remain civil and assume good faith. If you can't follow the rules and act like an adult, you may be blocked from making any further contributions. - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2026

• News and notes: Entirety of Wikinews to be shut down
  All languages to be shut down in May; first AI agent blocked; new name for AfD?

• In the media: AI ban, newspapers disrupt archiving; and antisemitism complaints
  Perennial challenges with AI, demographic representation, and attacks from people buying media influence.

• Community view: Videos from WikiConference North America 2025 in NYC
  In attendees' own words.

• Disinformation report: Cleaning up after Jeffrey Epstein, Peter Nygard, and Mohamed Al-Fayed
  Countering the edits of the rich and dangerous.

• WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2025 in NYC review
  About the conference series, and this conference particularly.

• Obituary: Dr. Subas Chandra Rout
  Rest in peace.

• Traffic report: Call in the dogs of war, soldier of fortune
  Though of course the picture needs to be Chuck Norris...

• Gallery: Canadian Rangers participate in Operation Enduring Encyclopedia
  Analogies between how Wikipedia works and how Canada works.

• Comix: n00bsitting
  ...!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

What is "an RS needed to verify?"

I recently made a change to June 2025 No Kings protests to add research from sociologist Dana R. Fisher. You then added a tag about self-published sources with the message "sourced to a self-published blog post, we need an RS to verify...".

Based on the page about self-published sources, I think that this falls under "Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." As shown by her Wikipedia article, her research and expertise includes activism and democracy, which I think makes her a subject-matter expert. She has also been previously published in reliable sources, including Time magazine. I'm not sure what an "RS" is, but I'm hoping that you can help explain the process so that this source can be used. –Thunderforge (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

It's a rather important part of Wikipedia. We need a third-party, independent source to verify the content. Anyone can write anything they want on their own blog website (which is what you cited for your addition), all I'm asking for is an independent source that backs up the claims she made on her blog (a reliable source that makes the same claims, or sources her numbers themselves). I didn't remove the content completely due to her being notable enough for an article here, but we still need a second source to verify what she claimed on her blog. You've been here for 20 years and clearly know what an RS is, considering you just linked WP:RS in your comment, so I'm not sure where the confusion lies? - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

It's true that I have been off and on Wikipedia for a long time, I just had never heard the abbreviation "RS" before. Thank you for clarifying that it stands for "reliable source". I am familiar with what that is, but this is the first time I've ever come across an issue with self-published sources; I guess it just never came up in my years of irregular editing.

Fortunately, I found that the New York Times cited her work regarding the demographics of these protests in one of their articles, so I added that. Is that sufficient enough to keep the original research, which goes into more detail than the NYT does? Is that the general rule for self-published research, that if they are a subject matter expert, then we can cite their work so long as a third-party reliable source also cites it? Thunderforge (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, Adolphus79, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! ☘︎☘︎☘︎ALEXHammeke (talk | guestbook | sandbox) 06:09, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Happy 20th! ☘︎☘︎☘︎ALEXHammeke (talk | guestbook | sandbox) 06:09, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both! Where did the last 20 years go?!?! - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 April 2026

• News and notes: Six Serbian Wikipedia editors banned following controversy about political bias
  Plus, new bans for AI-generated content in place, a new drop in active admins, pranks on pranks, May admin election, and other news from the Wikimedia world.

• In the media: Could Wikipedia be involved in Massachusetts' proposed social media ban for minors?
  Another regulate-the-internet attempt casts a wide net.

• Gallery: March equinox
  The progression of seasons in March.

• Traffic report: Time to change my galaxy in case, we outta space!
  What catches the reader's eye? Death and film, per usual, and a loop around the moon per unusual.

• Comix: Of skirts and articles
  When significant coverage is only skin deep.

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

question

Hello, I completely understand that you'd like concrete proof about my edit on the 2021 Denver and Lakewood shootings. So, I just wanted to ask if pictures taken by the perpetrator, that have the firearms included in them, are fine? Should I use a news article that have the mentioned pictures? Also, the information about the exact model of the shotgun was just my educated guess from the pictures and CCTV footage I saw, so I'm not sure if that's legitimate enough to include? ClockEater49 (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi ClockEater49, and welcome to Wikipedia! First, if the weapon was only owned by him, and not used in the event, there is zero reason for it to be listed in the infobox as a weapon used in the event. Second, pictures taken by the perpetrator himself also do nothing to verify it was used in the event (and not even evidence of ownership really, I have taken pics of friends' guns before), and your educated guess (no matter if it is correct) as to the shotgun model unfortunately counts as original research. What we need are third-party, independent, reliable sources such as newspaper articles, interviews, etc. that have specifically named the weapons used and/or the model names. If there is CCTV footage that shows an obviously "pump action shotgun", or obviously "AR-15 style rifle", being used then we can at least start with that, as long as you can cite it to a reliable source (a news organization hosted the video, not just "someone on YT" or insta). Think of it this way, in 10 years, if a future reader wants check that what we have is correct, they need to be able to, and preferably with a quick click to the news article that confirms that content. If you find such a source, feel free to restore the information, but make sure to cite your sources for any content you add. If you have any question or need any more help, feel free to ask! Happy editing! - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

clarification

Hello, i hope you are doing well, I just wanted to explain the recent changes I made to the article of Osman Mohamoud (clan). The goal was to enhance the article through the addition of new changes and it seems old, relevant and updated material concerning the clan organization. There may be some reservations regarding these changes, and that is why I want to talk things out. If the changes pose problems with source attribution and formatting, I will make the necessary corrections. all i want do is to make a better information and there is no strong sources international, majority is local links if there is anything i can do please let me know. Taxarhorane (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that your goal was to "enhance the article" when you removed unresolved maintenance tags you did not like, restored the unsourced list (for the second time? third?), and added fake refs (added a ref tag with a name but no source material). These are all disruptive edits because they did nothing to "enhance the article", and we have already discussed your edits to the page in the past, meaning you already knew they were inappropriate. - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your reply. I know what you mean, and I apologize for any errors I made while editing, such as deleting maintenance tags, undoing unsourced text, and putting in incomplete citations. That was not my purpose at all.

I wanted to edit the page positively, but now I realize that I did not adhere to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia when doing so. I will refrain from doing so without using appropriate sources.

As there are only a few sources available from reliable sources, I would like to know which type of sources would fit this article. Thank you. Taxarhorane (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Considering this was not your first time making these exact edits, being reverted, and the reason explained to you, I find any of this statement hard to believe. You even told another user that you were going to restore the unsourced content in February, stating that you knew the unsourced content would likely get removed again. Then you disappeared for 2.5 months and came back to make those edits again, thinking no one would notice? - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I understand your concerns, and I agree and accept with you point, You are right that similar issues happened before, and I should not have repeated the same mistakes. I sincerely apologize for that.

From now on, I will stop making changes directly to the article and will not add anything without sourcing. Instead, I will try to propose all changes on the talk page.

My intention was not to be disruptive, but I understand now how my actions appeared, I will follow Wikipedia guidelines moving forward. Thank you for your patience.🙏 Taxarhorane (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for fighting vandalism against me! Feather&Martin (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Um... Thanks? - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Your welcome! Without you noticing me I wouldn't even add those sources! Keep fighting vandalism!

Beggars can't be choosers. So humorous! Feather&Martin (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I hope you know that I never considered what you were doing vandalism, that would imply purposely intending to disrupt the project. To me, it was more of a "new(er) user needs a stern warning to stop because they've kinda ignored the first few" moment, because you have been here for a little while now and I believe that you are genuinely trying to improve the 'pedia overall. Once you responded and understood, everything was fine. I hope it only makes you a better editor, and 20 years from now you can do the same for another new editor. Thank you again for the barnstar, good luck, happy editing, and if you need any help in the future feel free to stop back by! - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

That is so kind! Thanks! Feather&Martin (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Jack

Am coming up with some good Google references, maybe take another look, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm watching. So far you have added one good source about the museum itself, and a couple others that barely mention it lumped in with other golf museums in an article talking about how no one seems to care about golf museums. I still don't see anything of note that couldn't be merged with the content already on Jack Nicklaus. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay. Although I disagree that's for the discussion. Actually, thanks for nominating this (teeing it up?), have done some good work on it and made several nice additions to other articles and links because of the nom. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Forever the sloth, I get bored and go a'wanderin' sometimes... gotta give love to Special:Random for helping me find those lost little babies that need my assistance... For what it's worth, what is there is great, but most of it (was/is/can be) already covered in/merged to his article, and I just don't see the significant coverage anywhere to justify its own article. Golf Digest and SI are reliable, but aren't exactly the Times or the Post, or even the Columbus Dispatch; and mere mentions do nothing more than prove its existence. Google had little besides travel websites linking to it, and G news had zero. I am impressed with the additional content and sources you have added, but I still don't believe it deserves a standalone article. Maybe increase the content on his article into its own subheading and redirect this there in hopes of one day being notable enough to stand alone, but just not yet I think. In the end, I couldn't decide what to do about it and ultimately chose to let consensus (or rapid improvement) decide instead. :) - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Odd that the Columbus Dispatch, the main hometown newspaper, hasn't done a feature article on the museum, and I may give them a suggestion about it (maybe their sports editor doesn't know they haven't done one, at least one I can find on the net). As a journalism graduate and former journalist I'm often surprised at the lack of coverage of this or that, and this is a that. Thanks again, Randy Kryn (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I wish you the best of luck in your quest! - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Looks like the article has gotten the Viriditas treatment (which is a good thing). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I haven't been around for the last week. I see that it was greatly improved and Kept, and am in no way disappointed with that result. I will take a closer look when I have a chance to sit down here again. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

MKE MPT

Adolphus! I was looking at this article about an Turkish AR15-style rifle and most of the article's contribs are (seemingly) press releases. imo the article reads like a product pamphlet and should be trimmed and rewritten, but I'm not familiar with firearms enough to decide what to and not to remove.

Would you help with the trimming? Like, just remove the unencyclopedic stuff - I'll take care of the rest of the rewrites. Thanks! 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 17:20, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I will take a look at it, but I'm a little busy IRL today for a proper sit down. Tonight or tomorrow? I know there aren't any major errors, I've been watching it for a minute now, but I have not checked all of the sources to verify every statement in the article or assess the sources themselves. If you want to start improving it, I will check them next time I'm on. I do know that all the content added today by the new(er?) user is supported by the one source they added, if you want to name it and add cites to the content they added to the infobox. - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! no hurries. we don't have a deadline here afterall (and my procrastination is the worse among all Wikipedians). 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 21:39, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi 海盐沙冰, my apologies, I started working on a new project here at the house, and it turned into a larger project that has now spun off into yet another, and I have barely even touched my computer since last Sunday, or looked into this for you. Wikipedia is great for rainy days when I am stuck inside, or winter (which is like 8 months around here anymore, haha), but I try to spend as much time outside as I can when I can. I obviously am not the only one watching the article, and I trust that you know what you are doing with respect to trying to clean it up, so please feel free to start this on your own. If nothing else, you know I will catch up on anything I missed on my watchlist whenever I do have time again to sit down here again, and I think it is safe to assume that any other watchers will help if there's any major issues. To answer your original statement, I don't see a problem with using a press release as a source, so long as we don't use the information promotionally. If we are just using it to verify that a particular variant does exist, or the barrel length, or when it was released, or some other similar "simple fact", it should suffice. As the old quote goes, "We just want the facts." That being said, if we can find a better source, like a magazine article, news report, or other independent reliable source, that would always be better. And anything that's unsourced can obviously be removed anytime at anyone's discretion, including yours. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

(←) Hi 海盐沙冰, I apologize again that the real world got in the way. I just looked at this article, and don't see any obvious promotional content. I also don't see any (content) changes since you added the tag. Is there a specific source that you had concerns about? - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I'm sorry for my part, too, for starting many things and forgetting all of them (this article included).

I initially had my eyebrows raised at some of the marketing-sounding text, but coming to realize (over passing months), that I too frequently assume promotion or bad faith when reading on commercial subjects, when in many cases the proper fix is to simply to copyedit the text to a neutral tone.

I have removed the promo tag I added months before, as I agree with you that it is not very promotional (if at all) after having re-read it just now. I think I need some baked trout...

Thank you for reminding me of this article, wish you well :) 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 21:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Ha! We've all been there... no harm, no foul... sounds like a little break was what we both needed just to read it with fresh eyes... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 May 2026

• News and notes: Offline: Osama Khalid still in prison
  He has been imprisoned since 2020 for his Wikipedia edits. A fresh campaign is calling for his release.

• In the media: Indonesian editors, you shall return!
  And lawspam, may you be away.

• Disinformation report: Who is a typical paid editor? Who are their typical clients?
  Remember the golden rule!

• Recent research: WikiLambda the Ultimate
  Does Abstract Wikipedia help fight "One ring to rule them all" solutions for knowledge access - or does it implement one itself?

• Traffic report: This is where I'll be, so heavenly, so come and dance with me Michael!
  A real off the wall thriller, invincible, can't beat it, or is it dangerous and just bad?

• Forum: WikiAnnotate: help us build a dataset of article quality evaluations
  A research project to build better automated article assessment tools.

• In focus: Demystifying the 2026-27 Annual Plan
  A guide to WMF's Tech Annual Plan for the next year.

• Opinion: Wikipedia isn't a battleground. So why does it feel like one?
  Do we really have to fight?

• Serendipity: Wikinews: Into the Wikiverse
  The early suggestions for what the wiki could have been.

• Special report: Wikimedia Foundation closes Wikinews after 21 years
  Displaces 700 active editors among 31 language editions.

• Community view: Wikipedia's traffic drop: more on languages and freshness
  Which topics are dropping, and is the pattern the same everywhere?

• Gallery: Earth Day and Mother's Day
  Earth Day was on 22 April, and Mother's Day was on 10 May (in the US and many other countries).

• Comix: Brother, can you spare a page?
  What would you say?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Richard Henderson

Hello Adolphus79,

Thank you for the note regarding WP:CITELEAD. I completely understand the formatting rule about keeping the lead as a high-level summary of what is already cited in the body.

My main goal is to ensure the introduction more accurately reflects Henderson's active organizational role in the pioneering expedition to Nashville, rather than framing him as just a passive land speculator. Official records from the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (NC.gov) explicitly credit him with organizing and funding these foundational efforts.

Since the facts are solid, would you be open to a rephrasing of the lead section that captures his role as an organizer of the expedition, while ensuring the heavy citations remain properly anchored down in the body of the article?

The specific source I was referencing states that "he led a group of settlers into the Cumberland Valley in Tennessee and founded French Lick, better known today as Nashville." The current phrasing suggests he simply sold land. Jjanthony70 (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

If you wish to rephrase what is in the lead, that is fine, so long as it is sourced somewhere in the body. - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the collaboration. I'll add/refine the text in the body with source where I think it makes sense and then integrate the information up in the lead. Have a great one. Jjanthony70 (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Good luck and happy editing! - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For catching onto my mistake and WP:TROUTing me accordingly. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 20:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Eep! I'm sorry, I'm old, have been busy IRL lately, and do not recall TROUTing anyone recently. Could you remind me? - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Adolphus79 No worries! I've also been a bit busy, hence the belated barnstar. I was referencing this. :) Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:57, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

A-ha! Well, thank you for the barnstar! - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Confirm rollback

FYI, regarding your accidental rollback on College of Central Florida, you might enjoy installing User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/ConfirmRollback.js. Basically when you click on a rollback link, this script triggers a popup window to confirm the rollback. Has saved me SO many times. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:49, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, but I prefer not using any scripts (or am just too old to bother with them). This was the first time that I can think of that this happened, the entry for your edit on my watchlist was the perfect length so that the rollback link was spaced immediately above the diff link for the edit below yours, and I think I just clicked a little too quickly... lol - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

No worries! I've just made that error so many times, figured I'd share what helped me. Keep doing your thang! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 June 2026

• From the editors: Ways for beginners to support The Signpost community journalism
  Pointing the way to your contribution to The Signpost!

• News and notes: Community Tech development team disbanded
  And English Wikipedia reaches a milestone in number of highly active editors.

• Disinformation report: PR for the people?
  Or, "PR using PR for PR"?

• Recent research: Proposed tagging system for AI involvement; successful and unsuccessful AI tools for contributors
  And other new research publications.

• In the media: Who won a 14th century battle and who won the 2026 Iran war?
  Media take issue with portrayals of recent and medieval history on Wikipedia. Plus a team supporting Wikipedians gets dissolved, and a few other things.

• Community view: Putting the Wish into the Wishlist
  A history of the Wikimedia community's request process to Foundation developers.

• In focus: A global standard for Neutral Point of View
  Wikipedians are commenting on a proposed global standard for neutral point of view.

• On the bright side: Flowers, blue helmets, reefs, pride, and Juneteenth
  Nice things around the world.

• Op-ed: Breathe, Don’t Panic, there is a different story about Wikimedia + AI futures
  We can build a strategy about AI that doesn't just center on readers; there are still plenty of humans to write the encyclopedia and work on diverse global knowledge.

• Opinion: Wikimedia Foundation staff develop union and Wikimedia user community reacts
  Why should editors support the Wiki Workers United union drive? Lessons the Wikimedia movement can learn from other labor struggles.

• Technology report: Community Tech team is disbanded, controversy erupts
  WMF disbands Community Tech, sparking community backlash over the future of the Wishlist and concerns about unionization.

• Traffic report: 'Cause this is thriller, thriller night
  Horror movies and Michael Jackson dominate theaters in the lead-up to the World Cup.

• WikiConference report: Report of Volunteer Supporters Network Annual Meeting 2026
  Outreach staff of Wikimedia chapters host a global discussion.

• Comix: Take your turn
  In a maze of twisty little edits, all alike.

• Humour: Group of banned T-shirt makers comes out of hiding to sell new Wikipedia-themed merchandise
  It ain't WikiProject United Nations, but you will find some PUNs.

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Osman Mohamoud clan tree

Hi Adolphus79, I hope you’re doing well. I came across your changes on the Somali clan article, particularly your previous edits on Osman Mohamoud (clan) regarding the clan tree structure. I noticed that many previous edits lacked strong sources, and I’m glad to see that you are maintaining the reliability the information. I wanted to bring to your attention a resource I recently found out a book on Google Books which very explicitly shows the structure of the clan and where it is distributed, I just thought before making any more edits to the article, it should discussed.

Reference: (https://books.google.com/books?id=aAhBAQAAIAAJ&dq=mohamme+harti&pg=PA140)

Osman Mohamoud clan tree

Hi Adolphus79, I hope you’re doing well. I came across your changes on the Somali clan article, particularly your previous edits on Osman Mohamoud (clan) regarding the clan tree structure. I noticed that many previous edits lacked strong sources, and I’m glad to see that you are maintaining the reliability the information. I wanted to bring to your attention a resource I recently found out a book on Google Books which very explicitly shows the structure of the clan and where it is distributed, I just thought before making any more edits to the article, it should discussed. Reference: (https://books.google.com/books?id=aAhBAQAAIAAJ&dq=mohamme+harti&pg=PA140) ~2026-38403-22 (talk) 05:54, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 July 2026

• News and notes: An exclusive club
  Wikipedia Co-Founder Larry Sanger gets a community ban for canvassing.

• In the media: Battle for a soul – who won?
  Commissars, winners and losers, blocks or bans, a Wiki red card, social engineering on wikis, and Swift action!

• Opinion: We need to innovate with Wikimedia decision-making
  Rules we can actually read, trust and change!

• Recent research: LLMs and NPOV, 20 years of user blocks, Esperanto and Volapük Wikipedias
  And other research findings.

• News from Diff: How to host Wikicurious in your own community
  The Wikicurious team shares their approach to Wiki-event organizing.

• Community view: CUNY Newmark Wikimedian-in-Residence Quarterly Brief – April to June 2026
  Quarterly update on the activities of the City University of New York's Wikimedian-in-Residence, Richard Knipel.

• Special report: Wikipedia escapes Category 1 designation under the UK Online Safety Act – for now
  A possible future recategorization by the UK Government remains an existential threat to Wikipedia.

• On the bright side: Fatherhood, weather, and diplomacy
  Father's Day, Canada Day, and the 250th anniversary of the United States Declaration of Independence.

• Op-ed: A Layup Easy Proposal for Wikimedia at 25: Spend 25% of Donations on the Community
  If strategy priority 1.1 is supporting the community, can we not increase the support to the community? Increasing grantmaking to 25% of the budget would be a move toward equality in the movement.

• Traffic report: The grass was greener, the light was brighter
  We reached the dizzy heights of that dreamed of World Cup.

• Comix: schnozzed
  on lollerskates

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2026 (UTC)