User talk:Adolphus79/2014-2020

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Adolphus79. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._M._Eddy,_Jr.

Hello Adophus79:

I am wondering why the link to the 'free' eBook was considered 'sales', and why the link to 'Fenham Publishing' is not considered sales and removed, as that is the only thing that link to Fenham Publishing does offer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsabulsky (talk • contribs) 17:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you confused as to why a link to a third party sales website (google play) would be removed, but the link to the publisher would not? - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm confused. Because this is a public domain work, so there is no difference from Google Play and Fenham Publishing the story. Well, except that the Google Play eBook is free of charge and the Fenham Publishing link costs people money. So, I really do not see your point. - Dsabulsky (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

And, with your previous edit linking to the Wikisource page for the same story, it is pointless making an external link to an online storefront (free or not) for a single story... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there any correct way to provide the public source ebook using wiki? WikiSource is nice, but does not provide for correct formatting or portabilty.- Dsabulsky (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.84.89 (talk)

Occupy Wall street

How can a movements website be considered unreliable when it comes to their present position? Are they not capable of stating their present position accurately. Your excuse for reverting is not applicable here. Spend some time thinking about about what you are reverting. Please do not revert to maintain your agenda or POV if this apllies to this revert. 172.56.11.104 (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your comment, but there are a few things you need to know. Firstly, I have no "agenda", nor POV, of this subject. I am simply a Wikipedia editor. Secondly, you can not use an organizations own personal website of twitter feed as a reliable source. If this were true, I would make a website saying I was the president, and then change half the articles on Wikipedia, using my own website as the reference. Please read WP:COI and WP:SOURCE if you still do not understand the need for reliable *third party* sources. - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Nikon F70

Hi, I have been reading some of the Nikon articles. I noticed that you contributed significantly to Nikon F70 This article and others seem to give a different evolutionary lineage than is implied by the common chart posted at most of the articles. I collect Nikons and have many of these cameras. I'm trying to figure out the evolution of the 35mm AF series, especially the upper end cameras and fill-in the cameras missing from my collection. Here are a few of my nicer AFs: [1] The main collection is at [2] BTW, these are available for free use on WP, and I'm happy to provide a release. I'm not writing much at WP but fully support the project as I can.

Is there a group who is coordinating then Nikon articles at all? Best regards, Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello. To be honest, I know nothing about cameras, this was just a random article that happened to have someone vandalizing it. I was going to direct you to the Cameras or Photography WikiProject page, but there appears to be no such project... a semi-active WikiProject Photography is all I can find. I myself am only semi-active anymore, and not a camera expert. I would suggest starting at WP:FOTO, and maybe finding someone that is more active than I am, and also more knowledgable about that subject. I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help. Good luck, and happy editing... - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

11 years of editing, today.

Hey, Adolphus79. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey Invite

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_3xd0qXsKV44i2hf&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

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! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you... :) - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia article for the Italian physicist Lorenzo Iorio

Dear Sir, I am Lorenzo Iorio (you may want to ask me to verify my identity if you are so kind to explain me how to so), an Italian physicist, I am writing to you about my article in Wikipedia. By looking at the existing articles of other physicists in Wikipedia, I feel that what happened to the article about myself is unfair and inappropriate. From the mess I can read about it, it seems to me that the real, main problem with it was a matter of multiple accounts and so on, which was used as a pretext to have my article deleted. As such, I ask you to reconsider the possibility of having an article on myself since it should appear blatant that I am notable enough to have it, as per your criteria and from a confrontation with the existing articles on other physicists in my field. Thank you for your attention. Best regards. Lorenzo Iorio Iorio.Lorenzo (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

First, "since it should appear blatant that I am notable enough" is very egotistical for someone I've never heard of... no one is notable around here without reliable sources... you, me, or Einstein...

Second, considering that both of you have hinted at past experience editing Wikipedia, but both accounts have only just suddenly been created, means that I am sure you are both currently guilty of sockpuppetry, which is against Wikipedia policy... and looking at the past AfD discussions, has been an ongoing suspicion with both of you for over 10 years now...

Third, I am not knowledgeable enough about physicists to have any criteria or opinion of my own on the subject... I know nothing about either of you, nor do I care about your little spat... what I do know is that according to his article, he does pass our notability guidelines regarding academics... whereas back in 2009, the community decided you were not notable enough for inclusion... and then in 2011, the community allowed you to recreate your article (under false pretenses), and it was again determined that you did not qualify... you even tried again in 2016, causing the page name to finally get blocked... if things have changed and you think you may now qualify, you are more than welcome to try re-creating it again... have you done anything significant since?

Finally, I do not care about this little schoolyard spat between the two of you, and I will give you a warning right now that Wikipedia is not the place for it... all I care about is writing an encyclopedia, the only reason I got involved was because he wasn't happy with his article and wanted us to delete it... as far as I see it, I think his article is fine and will be kept... if you think you are notable enough now for your own article, you can try to create it again...

Besides your respective articles, we always welcome new users and editors joining our community that can contribute to the overall encyclopedia... I am certain there are some physics related articles that could use your knowledgeable help... but we are not here to stroke your ego (or his), and any future fighting between the two of you would be wise to be kept off Wikipedia or you could find yourselves blocked... as "Wikipedians", you, me, him, Einstein, and God are all the same... follow the rules, remember this is an encyclopedia and not a schoolyard (or Facebook), and all will be well... I have left a welcome message on your talk page, which should be helpful if you wish to actually contribute to the encyclopedia instead of just continuing a decade long argument...

If you have any further questions, I am happy to help, feel free to leave me a message here anytime... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I wrote to you about my article, not about Ciufolini. There is no connection at all between having an article here as a physicist and the spat with Ciufolini. I am neither Einstein nor God; simply, given your criteria and the existing articles on other physicists working in my field, I should stay here. Plain and simply. I already told you that, from what I can read in the AfDs, etc., the main, if not the only reason for the removal, is alleged sockpuppetry, not my scientific merit. It is a fact-and your own writing here seems to confirm it (you do not know anything about me and physics, but immediately sentenced about sockpuppets, blah, blah, blah)-that the only thing that matters seems to be sockpuppetry, not the scientific content or merit of an article. Please consider that Wikipedia Admins, who really believe to be God indeed, seem to be trained by KGB in the sense that their first and only interest is to discover if somebody is a sockpuppet of somebody else. When their paranoia starts to circulate, it is impossible to use any rational argument: all will be used against you, arguments will be selectively ignored and so on because it has been already decided that your article must be deleted. Even if you are Einstein or God. Now, recreating the article on myself is currently blocked, and only Admins can do it. Moreover, even if you, or somebody else will remove the block, could I write an article on myself? Could I propose somewhere a draft? How? Thank you. Best regards.Iorio.Lorenzo (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I have now four qualifications as University Professor: two as Associate Professor (one in Theoretical Physics, and another one in Astronomy and Astrophysics) other two as Full Professor (one in Theoretical Physics, and another one in Astronomy and Astrophysics). According to NASA ADS, my h-index is now 40, and I have more than 3500 citations (self-citations excluded). I have more than 200 peer-reviewed papers, and there are several international outlets like magazines, newspapers, etc. which dealt with my papers. Now, if you are able for a moment to put aside sockpuppetry issues, and look only at the notability criteria and to the existing articles on other physicists, you should realize that I am entitled to have an article here, even if you do not know what is theoretical physics, the h-index, etc. etc. Thank you. Best regards. Iorio.Lorenzo (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, clearly you skipped over my entire answer other than the single word 'sockpuppetry'... please re-read my "Third" statement above, it provided all of the links to the previous 2 AfD discussions... while there were concerns brought up about your possible/alleged sockpuppetry, that was not the reason the article was deleted, the "main and only reason for the removal" was that the subject of the article was not notable per our community's guidelines on the subject (WP:PROF)... attacking an uninvolved editor 10 years later, claiming I am a secret KGB agent simply for pointing out the obvious and well recorded past, is certainly not going to help your case any... I was not rude to you, and I have not ignored any of your arguments, I responded to your demand to have your article re-created... after the community has decided on at least 2 occasions that you did not pass the guidelines, less than a week after your buddy showed up here, without having made any other edits to the encyclopedia, and without providing me a single shred of evidence as to who you are or why you are notable...

Now, that being said... if you want to try to create a new article about yourself to show you now finally pass the notability guidelines, my suggestion would be to click on the little red "Sandbox" link in the top right with your other Wiki-links and start a draft... show us, with a well written and balanced article, that you now qualify... let me know when you have started it, and I will be happy to help you with the wiki-coding, POV, COI, etc... you provide the content and proper sources, independent newspaper articles about you, scientific journal articles about you, other biographies previously published, awards you have won with citations, not just links to/about your papers and blogs (and in English, please, if you want my help)... show us your new and improved notability, and we can see what the community thinks...

P.S. Neither Einstien or god would have had to demand that I write an article about them, because they could easily provide third-party reliable sources to show they pass the notability guidelines without being a dick about it... don't bite the hand that is trying to help you... :) - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I'll do that. About my real identity, please let me know I could prove to you that I am really Lorenzo Iorio. Best regards.Iorio.Lorenzo (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding that, please send an email to info-en@wikimedia.org for identity verification... please note, there is a chance this username may get blocked automatically due to the username policy, but that will be taken care of once you get the email settled... for more information, please see WP:REALNAME... good luck, and happy editing... :) - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Purely on the ID verification, I can confirm that Iorio has confirmed their ID through OTRS. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Ta-da!!! :) - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I put an initial draft in my sandbox. Please, take a look at it. I have not yet inserted the links to magazines, newspapers, etc. dealing with my works. Regards. Iorio.Lorenzo (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so here are my thoughts on this...

First, as a Wikipedia user, you have just been busted on the sockpuppetry suspicions, meaning this username will soon be blocked from editing... there is nothing I can do to help you with that... you know you are banned from editing...

On the second case though, as a physicist notable enough for an article on Wikipedia... pending another editor who is more knowledgeable about this saying otherwise, I agree with you... it does appear that you currently pass notability concerns... specifically WP:PROF #'s 1 and/or 8 (as editor-in-chief)... I personally don't see any issues with you having an article, feel free to submit your draft before you get banned if you want... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, 14 years feels like just yesterday! - Adolphus79 (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Brand New to Wikipedia, Question about removing my edits from Zero-Energy building page

Sir, I am brand new to the wikipedia community. I have just been trying to update further readings and reference sections of various, relevant pages with a new book from a professor I had in my MBA program. The book "The Power of Existing Buildings: Save Money, Improve Health, and Reduce Environmental Impacts", ISBN 978-1-64-283050-7 . I was wondering why you decided to remove my edit from the Zero-Energy Building page? Again, I am brand new to the wikipedia community and would appreciate any insight if there was a glaring error in my edit. As stated previously, I have just been trying to add the book as an additional resource to further readings and reference sections to no avail. - Zmlutz15 (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I understand you just had a new book published, but blindly adding it to multiple Wikipedia articles is not appropriate. When you insert it as an inline reference, or blast it across a half dozen articles, without bothering to make any other changes to the articles (or any other edits to Wikipedia at all), that can be taken as spam (advertising). I also think there may be some conflict of interest, considering you recently tried to write an article about the author which was deleted. If you can provide a reason why it needed to be added to 6 different articles within a day, that it provides additional encyclopedic content not already included, then it may be considered for inclusion. Otherwise, (as previously stated) it looks like you are just trying to advertise your newly published book. - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response. First and foremost, this is is not my book and I am not accredited for contribution to this book in anyway. I have been conducting research across various Wikipedia pages for some time now and creating a personal list of a multitude of relevant pages with regards to the content of the book. Once I felt I had compiled a strong, relevant list I logged on to wikipedia and added the text to the various further reading sections all at once for efficiency sake. I guess this is frowned upon in the wikipedia community?

In regards to just listing the book as further reading and not providing any additional edits within the pages, I was under the assumption that the further reading section was just that, further reading. Therefore, this section could list numerous books that are relevant to the page topic and expand the current understanding of the topic beyond Wikipedia which by definition would be advertising. This book adds up to date encyclopedic content not already included because it provides the guidelines laid out within this page as well as actionable items that can be taken to reach said guidelines. This book has been used in graduate level curriculum throughout the world. It is most certainly pertinent and educational.

With regards to conflict of interest, I attempted to create a page for the author where his career accomplishments and all of his books could be listed on one page. However, I was encouraged by the wikipedia community on other platforms to consider adding the author's books and scholarly articles to relevant pages already published to create authenticity before re-publishing the author's new article. Some of his books and scholarly articles can already be found on Wikipedia by other contributors. I am merely trying to expand the work of his sustainability research to other relevant pages. I hope I have explained myself thoroughly and you will consider this book for inclusion across all of the pages I have recently edited. Zmlutz15 (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

According to your contributions, you have done nothing to update the information provided in the articles, only advertise the book. If you feel that the book provides additional up-to-date information, I would suggest you add the additional information to the articles and then use the book as a reference. Again, if the only edits you are making is adding the book itself, without telling us why we need to include it in the encyclopedia, it looks like spam. Also, I find it very hard to believe that a book just published in November 2019 (with only 2 reviews on Amazon) has "been used in graduate level curriculum throughout the world".

For example: Say I were to write a book. I could tell you it was the best book in the world, and tell everyone here that they need to read it, that it has all kinds of great information in it. But, that does not mean it is encyclopedic, that does not mean it needs to be included in our encyclopedia. That is simply advertising the book. As an encyclopedia, we are interested in the content included in the book, and how is can be used to improve our encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not just a website to list any book that the author (or others) thinks people should read. There have been any number of books published on green living/energy efficiency/carbon-friendly construction, show us what content the book has that needs to be added to the encyclopedia, don't just tell us how awesome it is.

I would be more than happy to help you add the new information and properly format and reference it, but you have not provided any evidence that the book needs to be listed or referenced yet. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Have a very happy birthday on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Have a very happy birthday on your special day!

Best wishes, Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

The Wikipedia Birthday Committee wishes you a very happy birthday Adolphus79! Enjoy your special day.--1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Grand Duchy of the Lagoan Isles

I am started to get frustrated with the fact that you are reverting my edits, i assure you what i am saying is factually accurate and not just me trying to vandalise. It annoying that i can't write about something i own, so please stop reverting my edits as i even put in references to prove what i have put. If you keep doing this i have no choice but to report you to wiki, i look forward to hearing your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benhughes15 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

What you are adding is not evidence of anything, claiming "you own" the islands (or the micronation) without any solid proof. The free website that you list is your own making, not a reliable source. The micronation is well established, with newspaper articles and books having been written about it, not just a "my free website" link that anyone could have put up without any actual effort. If you are able to provide any hard evidence that you are the new ruler of the micronation (newspaper articles, news reports, books, etc.), then the changes can be made. I'm sorry that you are getting frustrated that you claiming to own it yourself without any hard evidence is not enough for an encyclopedia, but I could put up a website and claim I own it myself for that matter. You are not the first to do this, I am sure you won't be the last, but until then, without any reliable third party sources, your information is not factual nor encyclopedic.

P.S. Your threats of "reporting me to wiki" (when you obviously don't even know the rules here) aren't going to help your case any either. Next time, maybe ask for advice instead of making empty threats. Happy editing. - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

John Pinney

Hi - thanks for making the changes you did to the John Pinney page - I'm very new to Wikipedia, and am trying to get better information uploaded about people connected to Bristol and the slave trade / slave economy. It's really useful for me to see the changes you've made to the structure and sytax - thank you! Ruthhenrietta (talk) 08:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome! It's no problem, that is the nice thing about Wikipedia, there are other editors to help. I don't know much about Bristol, or the slave trade in general, but I am always happy to help with proofreading, syntax, or anything else Wiki-related that you may need, feel free to ask any time. Happy editing! - Adolphus79 (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Green Supplier Limited

Hello Adolphus79, thank you for your contributions to Draft:Green Supplier Limited. I have made some amendments to the article now to remove information without citations.

If possible can you review this once more and move it out of Draft state please?

Best regards, GA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenadvice (talk • contribs) 12:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, missed that one apologies, i've edited that now if you can review for a third (and hopefully final) time!

Thanks my friend — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenadvice (talk • contribs) 14:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I see no signs of significant third part coverage of this company, newspaper articles, books, etc. It does not seem to pass the notability guidelines for companies. Please read WP:COMPANY, and provide additional independent coverage to show that the company is notable. - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Adolphus79, thanks for your continued help. Please see independent articles below:

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenadvice (talk • contribs) 15:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, those articles seem to all be regarding the Ofgem event, which is barely more than a mention of this one company amongst others in a single event. Did you read WP:COMPANY? Can you provide significant third party coverage regarding this company alone? Newspaper articles written about this company, books written about them, some kind of media coverage specifically discussing this company by itself and not just a mere mention in a list of other companies?

Also, please do not create a new section for each reply, it hinders the flow of the conversation. You can simply edit this section, and indent your reply using colons (:). Also, please remember to sign your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~). - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

GTO model years

Hello, I appreciate that you took the time to look at my edit(s). I know it is easy to make mistake when even mitsubishi themselves don't hold records regarding this kind of information. As far as we know, the production for these cars started in late october of 1990 (25th). They were all built in the same plant in Japan. These early 10-11-12 / 1990 cars were officially sold as 1991 models. The production ended in 1999 and some leftover cars were sold as 2000 and even 2001 but were still 1999 model year. This can be seen with every production car with the model year being both produced and available slightly before the "year". People that refer to their gto as a 1990 refer to the built date and not the model year. There is still plenty of missing or incorrect information in this article and I tried to clear a lot of that up. If you can find source from dealership in japan that were advertising them as 1990 I would accept it without a word but I have been unable to find anything on that regard. The earliest advert from japan that featured a gto was for the 1991. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.161.231.224 (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The sources you provide are not reliable sources. The first is a personal website, and the second a sales website. Also, both sites only mention US sales, no mention at all of JDM model years or sales. There are just as many unreliable websites that mention a JDM 1990 model year vehicle registered in late 1990. - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Since I am unable to find any reliable sources to confirm the 1990 "model year" GTO, I have changed the wording to reflect that it was manufactured and marketed from 1990-1999. I hope this avoids any further confusion or conflict... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I have some questions

Since I'm new to Wikipedia (as I'm sure you've noticed), I could use some help developing my user page. I'm not sure if it meets the guidelines and would appreciate your help developing it. I saw your tokens (sort of?) on the left side of your page and would like to know how to add those, among other things. Sincerely, Gargantuan Brain (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome! To answer your question, your user page is one of the only places on Wikipedia that there are little to no rules, you can put whatever you want on there (within reason). Some people have a page that looks like a Facebook profile, some users purposely leave it completely blank. Even mine has changed a lot over the years. To read the guidelines on user pages, check out Wikipedia:User pages.

As far as the "tokens"(?) on the left side, I am not sure what you mean. I am assuming you are asking about either the icons at the top right or the infoboxes (again on the right side, as nothing is on the left side). The icons at the top are mostly specific to user rights I have earned over the years, and a couple specific to articles I have written, the category (as well as a template) for these can be found at Category:User top icon usergroup templates. As for the userboxes running down the right side of my user page, these generally have a more recreational and fun purpose. There are literally thousands to choose from, and you can even make your own if you want (the few that I have created myself are here). To find out more about userboxes, check out Wikipedia:Userboxes.

As for your own user page, what you previsouly had looks about on par with everyone else's first version. Just have fun with it, it is your own personal space on Wikipedia.

I hope these answer your questions, feel free to leave a message here any time if you need any more help... Happy Editing! - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I accidentally said "left" instead of "right" (guess I'm still learning those lol). Thanks for your help! Grateful, 13:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargantuan Brain (talk • contribs)