User talk:CircleAdrian

HI! I am the guy that wantonly and callously cut large swaths of your editing rainforest to the ground. I may have been grumpy, I may have been out of line, or I may have had low blood sugar. I am certainly no nitpicker, and I spend zero time waggling my finger at semantic arguments. It didn't sound right to me, which is a matter of opinion.... you cleared it up in a friendly and straight forward manner.. and I thank you. Restore it. I am so NOT a wikipedia expert, and actually as much as I would like to contribute there is an elitism here that is daunting, and the walls of nebulous acceptable practice are frustrating and arbitrary. So ... apologies! I won't bother it again. I know what it's like when people keep editing your work. UGH. BE WELL! Unclefishbits (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC).

Hello. You're being supected of sockpuppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mattisse. HeyMid (contribs) 22:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what this means, or where it came from. I definitely have only ever edited Wikipedia using this account. Please explain what this means. CircleAdrian (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• To answer your question at my talk page: it is considered a great courtesy to notify users being discussed or, as in this case, suspected of sockpuppetry; it allows users to comment and/or defend themselves or give their thoughts about the subject in question. I had nothing to do with that Sockpuppet Investigation; it was filed by a user named TCO. Here is the investigation in question. I simply have the page watchlisted, meaning that I can see any recent edits to that page. You were ultimately determined not to be a sockpuppet, and I do not think you are a sockpuppet either. In other words, the sockpuppetry suspicions have been cleared, and you can go on editing. I do not have much else to say about this. If you have any further questions I suggest you contact TCO. Cheers, HeyMid (contribs) 12:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Thank you very much - that was exactly what I wanted to hear. CircleAdrian (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey. I wasn't aware of the hoaxes page and if anything it would seem to encourage hoaxes, but if you want to add the info the dates the article were 3 Apr 2010 - 10 Sep 2012. Cheers, Whouk (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! Added. CircleAdrian (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, AC. I would like to comment on your thorough discussion of the above at the talk page there, but I'm going to try addressing a somewhat prolonged problem in the current sidebar there first.

I'm afraid my thinking is along the different lines from yours, but I'd at least like to address the issue you raise. Best wishes, Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am not sure about meaning of POV in this case. This statement is from J. M. Thomson (refs is given) and some what close note from "revisionist" Furet. Different views on a whole such as Thompson and Furet agree on minority usage. And the whole paragraph is an explanation as to the election which did represented the whole of France as popular, but anyway it was a minority of the vote - 10%. It is about National Convention as a whole and minority of the vote, nothing to say that either group, Girondins or Montagnards represented even less. Another point was about resentment against predominance of Paris, which Girondins stressed over and over, as being 1/83 departmental minority. And these minorities really carried the revolution. BTW because of that there was Jacobin dictatorship of Committees and application of Terror. Because of that the Constitution of 1793 was suspended. Different examples from different times: minority puritans in English Civil War, bolsheviks in Russian revolutions... What do you think? --Nivose (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The issue to me is the second half of that paragraph, but especially the note. If this is something that someone else has stated in a source, then to me you have to present it as their view ("Thompson argues that..." or what have you) — my issue is that both the paragraph and the note are phrased as if it's your own opinion that you're presenting, rather than someone else's. It's not necessarily a POV/NPOV issue, but that tag fit it best. --CircleAdrian (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, then I don't understand meaning of refs. Ref. points to Thompson, when one can find it "word in word". On the other hand if I put "Thompson argues that...", it means that some other historian "argues" something different or opposite. But there are none as note from Furet shows. And this is not point of view, not mine or Thompson's - it is a fact, following from the first "Elections" paragraph with numbers. Should I place "Dupuy argues..." after "Therefore the impact of the universal suffrage had very little effect." in first paragraph or after "On the whole, electorate had returned the same sort of men that the active citizens had chosen in 1791."? In this article I avoided presenting contradicting viewpoints of the historians. And if there are, I would certainly put them in notes with presenting both. Let say I write about Alliende elections like "Allende won the 1970 Chilean presidential election as leader of the Unidad Popular ("Popular Unity") with narrow plurality of 36.2 percent to 34.9 percent over Jorge Alessandri and 27.8 percent going to a third candidate (Radomiro Tomic) of the Christian Democratic Party (PDC)". This looks fine. But if I state that Alliende won with minory vote, this somehow becomes POV. And again there is no opinion of mine in this article; if there is a ref, it is from RS "word in word". In French Revolution actual page and majority related articles refs are misrepresented or just plain wrong or don't not exist in the source they are pointed to. In this article I tried to present this history in some semblance to actual events. --Nivose (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, revert my edit if you want. Whatever. But I don't think you necessarily do understand the meaning of references. The difference between the example that you're giving about Allende and the example in the National Convention article is that saying that Allende won the vote with a minority of the vote (while possibly a POV statement in a given article, depending on the context) is a description of what happened, while "there is no good reason to doubt that they represented the will of the five million Frenchmen" is editorializing. Who says there's no good reason to doubt that? Is it something you say? Is it something that Wikipedia, as some vast amorphous authoritative source, says? Or is it something that Thompson says? Because if the latter, then you should state that explicitly, by saying something like "Thompson argues that..." at the beginning of it.

Also, if your quote is coming from another source "word for word," then it should be inside quotation marks — to do otherwise is to expose Wikipedia to charges of plagiarizing. That includes if it's in a note (note 1 is incredibly unclear in that sense — who is making the statement in note 1?).

That, and I completely don't understand what you're saying when you say that, when you say that "there is no good reason to doubt that they represented the will of the five million Frenchmen" or "majorities begin revolutions; minorities carry them on," there's no need to attribute these words to Thompson because "[no] other historian 'argues' something else... as note from Furet shows." First, I have no idea how you're getting that from the note from Furet; second, I have no idea how you could possibly defend such an incredibly broad statement. There must be literally thousands of professional historians who have written about the French Revolution; you're quoting two of them. Any statement you make without attribution needs to be completely backed up by your source; if it isn't, it's POV. --CircleAdrian (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• From Help:Referencing "By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia while showing that the content is not original research. You also help users find additional information on the subject; and you avoid plagiarising the source of your words or ideas by giving attribution.
  In particular, sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged – if reliable sources cannot be found for challenged material, it is likely to be removed from the article. Sources are also required when quoting someone, with or without quotation marks, or closely paraphrasing a source. However, the citing of sources is not limited to those situations – editors are always encouraged to add or improve citations for any information contained in an article." --
  I bring example of Thompson and Furet because these historians from opposite schools (so personally I don't find them so opposite) agree on the same question. The same goes from chosen cited paragraphs in the article... "literally thousands of professional historians who have written about the French Revolution". Well, there are literally thousands of professional physicists out there, but only one Newton and one Einstein. One has to know the field well to know who is who. By reading the article you can decide if it is written on the basis of really RS --Nivose (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Friend, you don't get to decide which sources are authoritative & which ones aren't.

• That's why English Wiki French Revolution is not article about French Revolution :)) All the best. --Nivose (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, the quote that you give is referring to not using quotation marks in instances where you're paraphrasing someone else's quote, not quoting it directly. A direct, word-for-word quote always needs to be inside quotation marks. --CircleAdrian (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that you were a fairly frequent contributor to the United States Senate elections, 2014 page. It'd be cool if you could come along to JADPhD's talk page to discuss the inclusion of his predictions into the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Communistgoat (talk • contribs) 02:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing. CircleAdrian (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe you were the first editor of Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 to use the word "presumptive", which you used in the sentence (without wikilinks or references) "On May 3, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus tweeted that Trump was the presumptive GOP nominee." I invite you to add any comment you may happen to have on a discussion at Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Presumptive nominee. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Ludwig Fleck Prize a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Ludwik Fleck Prize. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CircleAdrian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP is 192.168.1.22. This is my personal computer. CircleAdrian (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You're trying to edit using VPN services. If you disable your VPN, you'll be able to edit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note: sorry, it took me a long time to realize that an automatic VPN feature on my computer was turned on. CircleAdrian (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The article List of lowest-income places in the United States has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

inacurate data. See talk page

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.

Hello. I noticed your edit summary here stating "please do not undo these edits without further discussion". Just FYI, it is the other way around; you should not reinstate a reverted edit without discussing and gaining consensus for it. See WP:BRD. Cheers, Number 57 16:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not a frequent editor, and I'm having a frustrating interaction with User:Af265 who keeps on undoing my edits on 2025 Tanzanian general election and 2025 Tanzanian election protests. I have now moved the edits to which they were objecting to other sections of the article than the introduction — they were objecting that I was cluttering the introduction. I am trying to edit in good faith. I think it's frustrating that User Y can just summarily delete User X's carefully written and sourced edits, and that the burden is then on User X to "gain consensus" for their edits, not on User Y to justify deleting them. Honestly, this type of thing is IMHO a big piece of why people who don't have a huge amount of time on their hands don't edit Wikipedia more. CircleAdrian (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thak you @Number 57 for bringing this up.

@CircleAdrian as i explained in the talk page, youre adding what i would call irrelevant details to section, that's why i said an independent editor must settle this issue since we seemed not to reach a concesus.

For example, in this [|edit] you added details that are not relevant. Let me explain, we're adding an event and the initial statement was just doing that as short as possible with the necessary info. what you're adding about the Suluhu speech or the actual percentage are not relevant and necessary for this article. Normally the percentage is rounded to the nearest whole number, in this case 98 percent. So you were not supposed to edit this one.

Just understand that and you'll see why im insisting that you're introducing irrelevant details. Its nothing personal though.

Thank you once again Af265 (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Why is the info about Suluhu's speech "unnecessary detail"?? Honestly, I am getting really tired of you summarily deleting my edits on these two pages, as if you own them. I don't really believe you when you say that it's "nothing personal." And you're saying that "normally the percentage is rounded to the nearest whole number" — which Wikipedia policy are you pulling that from? Why do you insist on repeatedly reversing my edits on these pages?? CircleAdrian (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Number 57, You're being obnoxiously over-committed to site guidelines, which I might remind you are not set in stone. WP:IGNORE is just as critical a policy as any other, and your defense seems to pretty roundly lack merit on account of the fact that @Af265 has made almost no effort whatsoever to actually justify his removal of the added material. Both of you are acting like 12 year olds whose mom put them in charge for the evening. (Since edited, apologies for the harsh language but I don't disagree with the final statement I made. Site policy doesn't give you endless clearance to impose your will without an equal effort to cooperate with, not make declarations to, another editor)

CSGinger14 (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

(Edit) CSGinger14 (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

CircleAdrian,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Volten001 ^☎ 18:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Volten001 ^☎ 18:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Tanzania medical cases chart has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)