User talk:Adolphus79/2021

Detroit Catholic Central High School
Hi Adolphus79,

Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. External wiki pages do not constitute an excuse as to the exclusion of sources on the present page. Those individuals who have citations provided do not require additional sources, while all those marks  do in fact require citations that confirm their attendance. Even the author of "politically correct bedtime stories" is listed as a graduate of both Detroit Catholic Central High School and Divine Child Catholic High School; they could not be notable alumni of both. Please clarify as to how the necessity of citing sources that establish attendance constitutes "Bad Faith."PSYCHREL (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)PSYCHREL


 * I already answered your original comment on User talk:Magnolia677. If the individual's article establishes attendance, then there is no need for a ref on this list. Also, your adding a ref tag to every individual on the list in retaliation to having one non-notable individual removed is pushing the limits of good faith editing. If you have concerns about one particular individual, I would suggest bringing that up on their article's talk page. - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The Our Campaigns website
I know you wanted me to find a website where I found the county results, but there was a link on that website for each state for history details and there’s a link for each election and it shows maps with some county results. Please forgive me. TylerKutschbach (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * First, I'm not sure that your ourcampaigns website is a reliable source, I can not find where they are getting their numbers from. Secondly, if there is a link for historical data and county specific data, as you claimed in this edit, please show me Floyd County's historical data.  Don't just link to the main page, show me the specific page for that data. - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Adolphus79, here is the page with county-wide Georgia election results from the website that TylerKutschbach is using. It's commonly used for election results and maps on Wikipedia, so it seems pretty reliable to me. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * On a second note, some pages, such as this one do not seem to have county-wide results (and instead have a blank map), while others, such as this one, do... -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Your first link is NOT county specific, it only shows state-wide results. And saying that some pages have results and some don't is not helpful at all. I asked about the specific vote numbers and percentages for Floyd County between 1880 and 1908, as the user added in the diff I linked, which they referenced simply to the front page of the website. This is an ongoing problem with this user, adding numbers or changing the numbers that are there, either without providing any sources or providing a source that does not offer those numbers. Even if some other page on the source provided is agreeable to the edit, I (or any other reader) should not have to start at the front page of a website and then search and scour through a dozen other pages to try to find the specific data that is being referenced, we should be able to click the link provided and immediately see the numbers as referenced. Imagine, if you will, someone adding information about a movie star doing something, and linked only "cnn.com" or "washingtonpost.com", not the specific news article from which they took the information. The WP:BURDEN is on the editor that adds the information to Wikipedia, to provide a reliable source for others to quickly and easily verify the information being added.
 * As far as the ourcampaigns website being a reliable source, I can not find any mention of where they get their numbers from. The same is true about Dave's Atlas. Although it is used extensively on Wikipedia, Dave's website itself states it is original research, and does not cite any of its sources. "Seems pretty reliable because it is used by other people on Wikipedia" does not means it automatically passes reliable source or verifiability concerns. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking further into this, ourcampaigns is completely user generated, which means it very much fails WP:RS. The user that added the content on the page you linked (or created the page, the website is not completely clear) provided absolutely no sources for where they got their information. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to see the specific results for a county, such as Floyd County, then you should hover over it on the map, for example, this shows James Cox winning the county with 1,923 votes, compared to Harding's 667. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, you are right - there is no source saying that ourcampaigns or Dave Leip's atlas's results are reliable (although this website states that Dave's atlas uses "official sources", and it is commonly referenced by reliable sources, as stated in its Wikipedia page), but they are so commonly used on Wikipedia as such, and it would be EXTREMELY difficult to remove all of them and find a replacement. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's 1920, outside of the range in question. That also proves that we would need a separate ref for each year, not just blindly adding the front page of the website for all the changes made on every page. So far, you have done as little to provide the specific refs asked for as TylerKutschbach has, although you are at least willing to discuss it.
 * Also, how many times a bad source is used on Wikipedia, and how difficult it may or might not be to solve that problem (hint: bots), means nothing if it is not a reliable source. Arguing that other people have used it, so it should continue to be used, is a terrible argument that won't get you anywhere here. What you should be doing is working to find a better, more reliable source. - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I never said that the sources are reliable (although Dave Leip's atlas looks to be, with ourcampaigns being much more dubious). I did say that it would be very immensely hard and tedious to scrub all of the pages that use these sources as references, whether it be for data or for county-wide maps, and then go back, find reliable sources, and insert them into the pages as replacements. I would bet that every county page in the entire U.S. cites either ourcampaigns.com or Dave's atlas as sources for their presidential election results, and it would be extremely hard to delete all that data, and find replacement sources. Again, not saying that I am against it (I am fully in favor of using reliable sources), but I'm also not going to volunteer to complete it. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Can I have the results I added that you reverted back to their pages? I didn’t revert them but I’m asking for permission because I really didn’t make up these results and I don’t want anymore trouble. TylerKutschbach (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What reliable source did you get the results from? —C.Fred (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Woohoo! Thank you! My first barnstar in over 10 years! - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Linking to QAnon
Hi Adolphus79, the wikilink you removed to QAnon at 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was not a case over-linking. It was in fact the only link to QAnon in the entire article (I searched for the term). If you think the wikilink should be further up in the article I don't have a problem with that. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect, it is already linked in the "Prior intelligence and concerns of violence" section... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I didn't see that. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Breitbart News
Greetings. I'm a bit confused by your edit summary saying Breitbart is not a "publication". I thought that being published (online or elsewhere) was the defining characteristic of publications. Italic text is used for online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content according to MoS. It's not like an online-only article from, say, The New York Times is not the product of a "publication" just because it hasn't appeared in an actual print copy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Aggregator websites (and/or parent companies) like Breitbart News Network are not, whereas their published works are. For example, Gannett is not italicized, but USA Today (the newspaper they publish) is. When in doubt, you can click the wikilink and see if it is italicized on it's Wikipedia article. - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, but the Vanity Fair source seems to be referring to the published work. And Wikipedia articles are often inconsistently formatted. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, Vanity Fair is the name of a published work (a magazine), not a news agency (company) (CNN, Associated Press, Breitbart)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I read your response wrong... the cited Vanity Fair article makes no mention of a Breitbart "publication", they specifically call it a "news outlet"... I have modified Carano's article accordingly... I hope this solves any confusion... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "News outlet" can mean either a news or a company that owns such a publication, e.g. "The Washington Post, The New York Times, and other outlets". Breitbart News Network is the name of both the publication and its parent company. The former, usually shortened to Breitbart, is the publication that the Vanity Fair piece contains a link to. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Your linked definition even says "a publication or broadcast organization" (as in the company that produces a publication or broadcast), not the publication itself. I can't find any evidence of an actual "publication" (magazine, newspaper, etc.), even on the Breitbart article and their website. I see mention of "articles" being "published" on the website, but that is not the same as having a "published work". Feel free to open a RfC on this, but from what I can find, it is a news agency (a company), not a publication. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's both. "...a publication or broadcast organization" means a publication or the organization publishing it can be an "outlet". A "publication" is  published work, whether online, in print, on film, etc.  For MoS purposes, a news site like Breitbart.com is a published work. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be tempted to remove Breitbart from that sentence anyway; it's not actually mentioned in the source, just linked - now normally we'd use the link as a source, but we can't because Breitbart is blacklisted. There must be other conservative sites that have commented on the issue that we could include instead? Black Kite (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Vanity Fair says, That led to praise from far-right outlet Brietbart [sic] for 'refusing to buckle and bow to the woke social media.' They misspelled the name of the site, that's all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would just like to point out that even the in the cited article, VF italicized the other publications, but chose NOT to italicize Breitbart in their mention... if nothing else, shouldn't we always cite what the source says not what they mean? - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering the aforementioned misspelling, I wouldn't necessarily think that was a deliberate choice. And the of a source is a legitimate consideration even when not directly stated. That said, sources often  italicize the names of news websites. We still do because we have our own MoS. Italicizing Breitbart (the website) serves to distinguish it from people named Breitbart, including the founder of the site itself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Or... we could just avoid it completely by changing our article to "one source", since the cited VF article doesn't say anything about other sources making that statement... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems quite a bit less informative. Not sure why we would intentionally make the sentence more vague than necessary. The source also mentions glowing write-ups from conservative-leaning publications that praised her for standing up to 'bullies', linking to a piece on The Federalist. The statement I added to Carano's bio was meant to summarize both this and the Breitbart reference. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If you did not see it yet, please see Talk:Breitbart News... - Adolphus79 (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your request contains a substantial argument in favor of one or more sides of the issue. Therefore it is not a "brief, neutral statement" as required per WP:RFCOPEN. Furthermore I never said that should be in italics. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I never claimed you said that. But it is a fact that between the conversation here, and your edit to the article, you have italicized almost every instance of the word (except as the individual's name) without discrimination. Do whatever you want, I'm not willing to argue with you about it anymore, that's why I posted the RfC. - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless, you argued for your own position in the RfC statement. You can take a position in an RfC you posted, but the opening statement itself should be neutral. You don't have to respond to me, but you should adjust the wording of the RfC accordingly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Assuming Do whatever you want implies permission to edit your comment, I've moved it below the initial question & options you gave for the RfC. I added some boldface but didn't change any wording. Feel free to revert/adjust if you don't like it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Lagoan Isles
Why are you deleting my edits. They are true and I have been recognised by baffins park officials as owner of the lagoan isles please stop causing hindrance as my edits were approved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grand Duke Ben of the lagoan isles (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, do you have any reliable sources to back up your claim? Last time, all you could provide was your free personal website. - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thats enough
I did it to 'em. [Unto whom?] Bofubm. preach ate chew --Oblio4 (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Huh? - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That was ... is - Nice catch there. All seriousness aside. --Oblio4 (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you! - Adolphus79 (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

RFA considerations
Hi there! Been a long time. I'm glad you're considering helping out the admin corps; I think we could always use the help. Regarding adminship, it seems to me that there's a bigger emphasis these days on knowing your specific niche in the 'pedia. Besides being broadly familiar with the three major administrative functions (blocks, deletions, and protection), there's a lot of value placed on specializing in a particular administrative environment, because it gives people a window to see what you're like in action. Besides this, demonstrating that you can collaborate well with others, read well, articulate well, and follow protocol well is vital, which is one of the reasons why content creation is so highly valued in RFA. So I would ask you...do you have a particular niche that you feel well established in, and how's your content creation?  bibliomaniac 1  5  17:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Honestly, my recent activity places me most in the areas of minor copyedits across a broad range of articles. As I click on a random article, or look up an actor in a movie, or am reading something I am personally interested in reading, whenever I find an error, I fix it. Mostly punctuation, spacing, typos, linking, etc. The administrative functions that I would most use would be for blatant vandalism (AIV) control (an IP (schoolkid) making joke edits on multiple pages, even after warnings, needs a quick 1 week ban, I can take care of it myself instead of reporting them and then continuing to revert all of their edits until someone else finally blocks them), same with RfPP, a little UAA, some 3RR, and maybe a few others I'm not thinking of right now. I have no intention at all of dealing with anything controversial, only the most cut-and-dry of cases, just to help alleviate backlogs and save someone else a little work on occasion. And I would obviously read up on any involved guidelines/policies before taking any action (current blocking policies, etc.). I'm not going to argue policy, I'm not going to take any questionable actions with the tools, I'm not going to abuse anything, I am just a well established editor with a clean history of keeping calm and staying out of trouble, asking to have access to the tools to solve the few minor instances I come across on my own. And occasionally scroll down RfPP, AIV, etc., to see if there are any other, once again very open and shut, reports that I could knock off the backlog. I am also open to reading up on the policies regarding other spaces I might not be as knowledgeable about, if I find something else that I could help with. I do have some experience with AfD, but would personally not be comfortable closing anything but the most SNOWy of discussions.
 * As far as content creation, User:Adolphus79/ArticleGallery will provide a list of the articles I have created. The bulk of my work is purely janitorial (minor copyedits to other articles as I read them), but there are a few articles on my list that I am rather proud of.
 * I know a lot has changed since I last ran, and I would be happy to go through another coaching session to make sure I am up to speed on the most current concerns. - Adolphus79 (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Cathal Ó Searcaigh
Hi and thanks for reverting the latest edit to this article by a very insistent edit warrior. Vandals tend to post unfounded allegations of paedophilia on the page every so often, based on a controversy which became national news in Ireland over 10 years ago. The matter was thoroughly investigated at the time, there was no evidence, and no charges were laid. I saw the edit before you reverted it and was inclined to let it stand. He makes a more reasonable argument for his edit on this occasion, and I can see some logic in his position: including a statement for the 'defence' arguably unbalances the argument just as much as allegations of guilt would. If the revert is reversed, I'd be inclined to leave it -- on the grounds I've stated, and also on the grounds that it may placate an editor who obviously has a strong emotional investment in the argument. But you may be right not to allow such a persistent character any leeway! Dmhball~enwiki (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to get into arguing whether or not he (the article subject) did anything specific. I reverted mostly due to the removal of references, as without any at all we have no verifiability. The last time, the IP editor in question got reported and blocked purely due to breaking WP:3RR, not because of the content dispute. I think both sides need to take this discussion to the article's talk page and come to a consensus regarding the article content and the way the information is presented. Simply deleting a section, especially a well sourced section, is not the way to go. - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I may be wrong but I think it was you who previously blocked the anonymous 37.228.200.43 for edit warring, distressing because what he was posting, and is posting again now after less than 3 months, I know to be scurrilous libel. Allegations against Cathal Ó Searcaigh were made more than 10 years ago, they were investigated in Ireland and Nepal, and no evidence against him was found, but it did his reputation desperate harm. Just now 37.228.200.43 has repeated his libel and I have reverted it yet again.

He won't give up. I have tried taking a reasonable approach and and recall reaching out to his talk page, but he did not reply. His talk page shows no trace of my attempt, I don't know why or how. Please consider doing something if possible -- however it may be a matter of, yet again, waiting for the almost inevitable further warfare. I'm beginning to wonder whether my eternal vigilance is worth it; maybe it would be better to remove the article altogether? Dmhball~enwiki (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't see that IP having been blocked before, but I remember the previous situation. Unfortunately, being a different IP, and only making the 2 edits to the page so far, there is little that can be done. I suggest reverting the edit, warning them on their talk page, and reporting to AIV if it continues. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Update
Hello,

I wanted to let you know that I have updated my user page to explicitly state my conflict of interest for each of my posts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Julia.Knoerr

If my edits could be reinstated, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you, Julia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia.Knoerr (talk • contribs)


 * Hello Julia, thank you for responding. Adding multiple COI userboxes to your user page does not answer my original question. What is your relationship with The American Prospect? If you are an employee of the company, we need to know, especially if you are being paid to edit. As far as the edits that I reverted, you injected false information (specifically this edit and this one, where USAA was not even mentioned in the article you cited), and/or content that was completely unrelated to the articles that you edited, therefore those edits will not be restored. It seems a little odd that as a new user, literally every edit you have made has added links to The American Prospect, whether it was related to the subject of the article or not, and continuing this pattern could be seen as spam by some editors without an explanation. - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

About images for Colt 1889
Hi. As I understand from here: https://www.frfrogspad.com/colt1889.htm all models identified by M1889/M1895 or M1892/1894 are the same 1889 Model just manufactured after that year, so, I think we can in good faith assume that all those images represent correctly the Colt M1889. Best regards. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello. Yes, I also read the Fr. Frog website initially, but that is a personal website/blog, with no citations for his information on the firearm (the reference at the bottom of the page is only citing the ammunition data). Whereas, if you visit the FBI Archive article where that specific image is taken from, it reads "The weapon is a Model 1892 Army and Navy Colt double-action, six-shot revolver made in 1895." Our own Colt M1892 article even mentions the story of this weapon specifically, as well as later modifications in 1894 and 1895 for the Army and Navy respectively (referenced from the Standard Catalog of Colt firearms). I can't find any sources (besides Fr. Frog's website) that mention a "M1889/M1895" model, and Colt has no information about ever manufacturing any revolvers designated M1894 or M1895. Lastly, a Google search for "Colt M1985" brings up no hits regarding a revolver (only the machine gun of that designation), and another Google search for "Roosevelt's M1895" brings back only hits about his Winchester Model 1895 rifle (or his (this) M1892 revolver that was manufactured in 1895). I'm afraid the Fr. Frog website (and therefore the file name and description) is simply incorrect. - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello again, in a matter of fact, according to this source: https://www.handgunsmag.com/editorial/featured_handguns_hg_coltrev_200803/138495 models ranging from 1892 to 1905, are all slightly different variants of the same gun created in 1889. Regards. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC) P.S.: Another source says the same: https://collegehillarsenal.com/colt-new-army-navy-m-1894-revolver-excellent and add this "The differences between the various models were almost impossible to observe from the exterior of the revolver, as the improvements centered on the lock work and cylinder locking system". Regards. --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Even that article says "Theodore Roosevelt, wielding a Model 1892 A&N". Again, every other source available (besides Fr. Frog's) claims it was an M1892, not an M1889 (or M1895). Yes, if you look at pictures, they are visually essentially the same firearm, with only minor (mostly internal) modifications over the years. But we (Wikipedia) need to be accurate in our statement, if the firearm in the image is specifically an M1892 (according to the original source of the image, with ample reliable sources to back it up), then we can not say it is something else based on another person's unsourced website. Please, I am not arguing the differences in the models, I am only arguing the accuracy of our statement regarding the firearm in that image. For example, if I took a picture of a Colt M1991, and uploaded it to Wikipedia, we can not claim the firearm in the image is a "Colt M1911". They are essentially the exact same firearm (visually identical), except a few minor internal changes, but the firearm in the image is not an M1911. You have done a lot of good work on assorted firearms related articles, and you clearly know your stuff, but I hope you understand my point. - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * OK.--MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Carey, Findlay Ohio
Hello. I'm curious why you deleted my additions to the notable people section of both Carey and Findlay Ohio. The man I listed has founded a chapter of the national F3 fitness group in Columbus Ohio (for which I provided a Wikipedia link), and has enriched many lives. I look forward to your thoughts. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baraboo624 (talk • contribs)


 * Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We have a guideline for names added to the "Notable people" section of town pages, generally the person needs to be notable enough to have their own article to be added to the list. If the person in question is indeed notable enough (see WP:PEOPLE) for their own article, I would suggest you create the article, then add them to the list. Feel free to ask if you need any help or have any other questions. Happy editing! - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

 * Thank you! - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

A goat for you!
Thanks for being my first welcome and early help on Wikipedia. I really appreciate all the answers you gave me when I was super concerned about my userpage (I hope I wasn't too annoying about anything).

Gargantuan Brain (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC) 


 * Thank you very much! You were never annoying, feel free to ask me anytime you need any help. - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * P.S. I saw this the other day, but I am not an admin, so I can't do an anonblock for you. My suggestion is to just stay logged in, and you will not be effected by anything the IP editors do. - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
why? i was fixing the syntax deity 23:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Because you didn't "fix" anything, you broke the template. - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You could have said that instead of falsely accusing of vandalism. And stop being condescending. deity 02:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I also don't appreciate the "final warning" as that sounds like you're trying to threaten me for making mistakes. deity 02:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The final warning is because you have received multiple warnings regarding your disruptive editing, but have chosen to delete them from your user talk page. And these are clearly not mistakes, when your edit summary shows you meant to make the edits. When you remove content stating "that is not what naib means", when the naib article clearly agrees with the original content, that constitutes a disruptive edit. - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

the naib article is for the arabic word, not the dune terminology. but please keep threatening me I’m shivering in my boots! deity 03:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't made any threats, only followed Wikipedia policies and guidelines, the same that you have chosen to ignore. - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

bet deity 03:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * K... lol... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Caption (Cathal Ó Searcaigh)
Thanks for improving the Cathal Ó Searcaigh photo caption – I agree it was a bit too informal (being a 'witty' reference to one of his books). However I'm going to edit it slightly, for the very good reason that the Ó in many Irish names is not a middle initial, but an integral part of the surname (a bit like Mac in other Gaelic surnames). The anglicisation of Ó Searcaigh is 'Sharkey', which native speakers generally avoid. The Irish Gaelic equivalent of referring to 'Sharkey' would be either 'Ó Searcaigh' or 'an Searcach'. The former is less confusing for non Irish speakers, so I'm putting that in. Sorry for the long explanation! Dmhball~enwiki (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * No problem, happy editing... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Grand Duchy of the Lagoan Isles for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Grand Duchy of the Lagoan Isles is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Grand Duchy of the Lagoan Isles until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Richard75 (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)