User talk:FDW777

Welcome!

Hello, FDW777, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits on List of aircraft losses during the war in Donbas article. I would appreciate if you could help me keeping an eye on that article, because from time to time a Anon IP, previous Banned user Vnkd‎ tend to make disruptve edits.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr.User200: see this. Removed defence-blog (again!), but not too sure about what needs to be done with the rest of the edit. FDW777 (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from FOARP - "Roughly 2/3rds of the edits to this map appear to be based on Twitter accounts...of which @Suriyak is the most common". I think it speaks volumes what has been the general attitude of editors regarding his reliability/usage as a territorial changes source when almost 2/3 of all edits were based on him. I also think its not a proper consensus where only three editors were involved in the discussion about the reliability of a Wikipedia source that has been used for more than half a decade by dozens of editors. That editors who are familiar with the source's background, including those who actively updated Wikipedia's Syria or Iraq maps during the years, were not involved in the discussion or were not asked for their opinion, is improper in my opinion, making the presented consensus unbalanced. However, I am not that interested in arguing or edit warring over the issue, so happy editing! EkoGraf (talk) 11:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS During your revert [1] you also removed my addition regarding the events of March 27th, cited to the Kyiv Post media outlet who in turn was citing the Ukrainian military (not Suriyak). Please be a bit more careful. Thanks! EkoGraf (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, hadn't noticed your other change.

Regarding Suriyak, the small number of participants in the discussion doesn't matter in the slightest considering the nature of the reference. An anonymous Twitter account using unclear methodology is simply not reliable per WP:SPS, which cannot be ignored because a group of editors think it's reliable. FDW777 (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you find the edit of mine you erased isn't formatted correctly, would you just edit it to better format it to the page instead of wipe it completely? Or at least tell me what you were pointing out so I can go back and do so. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about formatting. My objections are clear to understand, unreferenced and/or incorrect. FDW777 (talk) 07:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was what I meant, my apologies for not wording that well. And for not realizing you didn't erase Sinaga from the list. I didn't look closely enough to see that. Thank you for not erasing Sinaga from the list, that was my biggest concern. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sinaga's page actually wasn't clear on exactly how many men Sinaga raped, that was my concern in listing several counts of people in the list. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may now be time to report them, given their latest whataboutism. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll hopefully cobble something together in the next 24 hours. FDW777 (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: due to their most recent post on the talk page I'm prepared to hold off for now and see what happens. Obviously if we get more of the same I'll file the request. FDW777 (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I came across a weird IP (91.184.107.33) that's been doing this to almost every major company in the world, even if blatantly false. Looking at the range (91.184.107.0/23), seems like they have been doing it for much longer, and you have reverted them as "WP:EVASION" as 91.184.107.253/91.184.106.135 on Spotify and Zoho Corporation. Has this been going on for a long time? Pardon me – but I'm not sure if you're an admin or not, but wouldn't it be wise to just block this range entirely to make it stop? Or would they just return with another IP range. 121.167.126.47 (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your messsage. I've been tracking this vandal for a while, any help is always appreciated. FDW777 (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you removed two commanders from the infobox I added. I think that is weird because that they participated isn't really controversial and even on their own wikipages their participatiom is mentioned. I can add a source if you insist but the current sources do the job to DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of city flags in North America, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Pedro Sacatepéquez.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, on 9th of January 2021 I made a very disruptive edit to talk page of Antifa article where I essentially attacked you for a response which was a correct response. I don't know how to add a new reply to talk page on the Mobile app, so I am typing here I am very sorry for doing that and my use of abusive words probably wasn't appropriate for Wikipedia, I hope you have a good day BrawlyTheContributor (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FDW777. You may want to check out the newly-made Mayobridge landmine attack. It looks like yet another non-notable Troubles permastub, made up mainly of irrelevant details of 'background' and 'aftermath', with the classic misuse of '&'. ~Asarlaí 08:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

re: Talk:Otoya Yamaguchi

Looking back, you've been involved in numerous edit wars on the article and have been a fervent defender of the paragraph that has caused great controversy to the extent that the article apparently had to be semi-protected. Because you have been involved in this in a matter that is in my opinion unreasonable, I'll be bringing you up in the section regarding a co-editor on the talk page. I don't know how to link sections, so if you ctrl-f "otoya yamaguchi" you should find it.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 23.241.30.108 (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in working on drafts that anticipate the upcoming EP elections? I'm trying to gather editors ahead of time, so we can have an established format and idea of what should be included. I'd like to work on:

1. An article about the new EP parliament, similar to Ninth European Parliament --> Medium

2.The European Commission article will need to be updated when the new commission --> Large

3. There will need to be an update like on the Collage itself, similar to the von der Leyen Commission --> Large

4. An update on President of the European Commission --> Small

5. Update the High Representative of the European Union --> Small

Let me know if you are interested! Thank you so much for your contributions! Chefs-kiss (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biddy Mulligan's pub bombing is a well sourced article. The Banner talk 12:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since it wasn't even linked in the text in question your point is? And the salient "well sourced" part is from a newspaper published nearly 50 years ago. Does an alleged whip-round at a pub in England in any way compare to the support provided by Irish Americans and Libya? The answer to that question is found in the lack of coverage of the former in the many published works on the IRA - zero to non-existent. FDW777 (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated 1981 Irish hunger strike for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SchroCat (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]