User talk:FDR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, FDR, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 12:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Please sign on talk pages[edit]

Please sign and date your comments on talk pages. You can do this just by typing ~~~~, it will be automatically turned into your user name and a timestamp. I've added a pseudo-sig to the entries you've already made, but it's tedious and laborious to do. -- Jmabel | Talk 15:57, August 20, 2005 (UTC)


Answer[edit]

I apologize, in the future I will sign my account name and give the date as well. FDR | Talk August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Retraction[edit]

Instead of crossing out the "I suggust you may want to look at this user's contributions" comment why not delete the comment altogether." FDR | Talk 11:45 PM August 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Because it is one thing to retract a remark, and another entirely to hide the fact that I ever said it. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Don't remove Jmabel's comment. Given that he has assked you not to already it strikes me as unacceptable behaviour. Please don't repeat, SqueakBox 05:15, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I had not read my messages so I did not know that he had asked me not to delete it, I am deeply sorry for having done this. It won't happen again. I am kind of new to Wikipedia. FDR | Talk 12:32 AM, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

Hi FDR, I'm trying to make sense of your request. Even if all participants agree to delete the section in question, it may be easily found/recovered through history function. I'm not an admin, maybe they possess some magic powers to do more. I suggest, let's just leave it alone and move on. It will be archived and quickly forgotten. Newcomers tend to make mistakes, let's assume good faith on all sides and cooperatively contribute to make WP better. There are so many good things to do. Cheers. Humus sapiens←ну? 22:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I was editing the Edward Kennedy article and for a brief time I accidentally deleted the infobox, I apologize for this. FDR May 20 2:14 AM 2006

I am having trouble getting to the Canada page. Is there something wrong with it. FDR May 24, 12:19 PM 2006 (UTC)

Could someone tell me why I have been unable to get to the Canada page. FDR May 24, 12:27 PM 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. FDR 1:45 PM May 24, 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone like to continue the debate about on the Elizabeth II talk page about whether Canada is a kingdom on my talk page. FDR 3:22 PM May 26, 2006 (UTC)

Neutral POV[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you!

Most of us know David Icke is nuts, but we can't say it in the encyclopedia. If you have a reliable source saying he is mentally ill, we can quote it. It would probably go better in David Icke rather than Texe Marrs. Tom Harrison Talk 20:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You might have a look at WP:POINT when you get a chance. Tom Harrison Talk 18:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


I apologize for using a stupid means to make a point in the Texe Marrs article. I will change it back to in between and truly NPOV. The Texe Marrs article is the only article I did that with. FDR | MyTalk 6:09 PM 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your civility. Cheers, Tom Harrison Talk 22:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that there are other articles I changed in a slightly similiar fashion to. But in those I only changed my own contributions or removed them and it was because I actually thought my contributions were either not NPOV or poorly written. But in the Texe Marrs article I was actually doing it to make a stupid and inapropriate point against the NPOV policy but in the other articles I actually changed my contributions because they actually had problems not to make a stupid point. So that is not what I was doing with the other articles. FDR | MyTalk 21:02 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Cowan disambiguation page[edit]

I really am trying to help here, but you seem absolutely determined to apply your own style, rather than that dictated by the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). I'll run through each in turn (text in bold is a direct quotation from that page):

  • "Keep in mind that the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the information they want quickly and easily. These pages aren't for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific article."
"A thief, interloper, or intruder." — The word "cowan" does not appear in the thief page. Also, you don't need to write [[thief|thief]] as you have done.
"A person apprenticed to bricklaying but not licenced to the trade of masonry." — Again, the world "cowan" does not appear on the brickwork page.
  • "Try to link to the disambiguated page with the first word in the line, so:
    • Neapolitan chord, in music theory, a major chord built on the lowered second scale degree
    • not: In music theory, a Neapolitan chord is a major chord built on the lowered second scale degree"
That's why I've been writing "In freemasonry, a person who is not a freemason." Not because I like that version better, but because it puts the wikilink as close to the start of the bullet point as possible, and it avoids piping.

--DeLarge 10:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Additions to Freemasonry[edit]

Hi FDR... just so you know, I have removed the explanations of Cowan and "so mote it be" that you added to the Freemasonry article. I have no problem with explaining these terms, I just think you put them in the wrong place. The opening paragraphs are really designed to give an overview of what Freemasonry is, and explaining specific terms and usages does not fit in that overview. I'm not sure what section such explanations should go in, but the opening is not it. Feel free to add them back if you can figure out a better location in the article. Blueboar 14:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please cite sources[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Cecil John Rhodes, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please find and add a reliable citation to your recent edit so we can verify your work. Uncited information may be removed at any time. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now sourced my statement there and restored it but in altered form to make the content more apropriate and moderate. FDR MyTalk 1:13, October 4, 2006 (UTC)

Help with Nominating for Deletion[edit]

Could someone help me, I want to nominate the Megan Marshak article for deletion, but I don't know how to. Could someone tell me how to. FDR MyTalk 6:50:30 October 8, 2006 (UTC)

A step-by-step guide is available at WP:AfD, as well as detailed explanations of the criteria for deletions. I mention this because I'd oppose deletion myself - she's not the only woman whose affaire celebré has defined her notability (see Blaze Starr, Donna Rice, Monica Lewinsky, etc etc). And poor quality writing or a lack of sources are not criteria for deletion by themselves, although I'd agree that the page needs improving. --DeLarge 11:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Somebody vandalized my account and contributed an inapropriate sentence under my name. What can I do about this. FDR MyTalk 5:00 October 20, 2006 (UTC)

First thing - change your password. Is it a trivial munge of your username, or easily guessable ? Someone could have hacked it from afar. Wizzy 08:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed my password. I still don't know who vandalized my account. The fake contribution from the person who vandalized my account was in the Cecil Rhodes article. It said "when he died in 1902 Rhodes was considered one of the sexiest men in the world." That article is one I have contributed a great deal to, but I was NOT the person who wrote that and I deleted that inapropriate contribution. But I still have not figured out who vandalized my account. FDR MyTalk 32:46 October 21, 2006 (UTC)

Freemasonry[edit]

I've removed the section you added to Freemasonry, there is a section on origin theories in the History of freemasonry article to which you could add Lomas' theories. Given that the scholarship in his books is so poor the conclusions have no place in isolation on the main article.ALR 08:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

While I tend to agree with ALR on the 1717 origin I am interested in the way in which some Masonic authors are influencing popular culture with their theories of pre-1717 origins of Freemasonry. The most obvious example are the various Baigent and Leigh works that made up the biomass on which the Da Vinci code could flourish. You seem to have followed the subject far more than me so perhaps you'd have some ideas on this? JASpencer 09:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia[edit]

Stop hand nuvola.svg

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 11:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hexagon[edit]

Stop hand nuvola.svg

Please refrain from vandalizing pages as you did with this edit. XOsweetcandyyOx 05:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

fdr v. The Real World[edit]

You're contributions to the Cecil Rhodes article that were deleted, were to say the least, bizaree, why did you write that nonsense. FDR | MyTalk 9:37 PM 30 September 2006

Dude, WP:BITE; also, 'bizaree' is not a word, and your entire post seems to be a run on sentence which should, by all that is good and grammatic, end with a question mark (?). Oh, and you're ----->your. People in glass houses, yada yada yada... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.206.205 (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

May 2008[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Facebook, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gary King (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Relevant"[edit]

These edits are nonsensical and, if you wish, unsourced, so please stop making them. --Golbez (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

October 2010[edit]

Stop hand nuvola.svg This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.

If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Freemasonry, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MSJapan (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

February 2011[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Your recent edits, gong back to at last October 2010, seem to indicate that you are either no longer in control of this account, or yourself. Accordingly, for the benefit of Wikipedia, it seems to be contra-indicated that this account should be allowed to edit further in the absence of an extremely cogent explanation for such edits and a commitment to future constructive edits. That's up to you, if indeed, you still have control of this account.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Rodhullandemu 23:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011[edit]

Can I still edit my talk page?--FDR (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

December 2011[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

FDR (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Because I understand my previous edits were unacceptable and that I need to get a hold on myself. Specifically the ones such as "George Bush is more relevant" etc. and in the past I made some good edits such as creating the Catherine Radziwill article and improving the Rhodes one FDR (talk) 8:26 pm, Yesterday (UTC−8)

Accept reason:

As a condition of your unblock, (1) You will never vandalize Wikipedia and edit only constructively and in good faith, (2) You will strictly adhere to the core community expectations of Wikipedia, especially all of those policies and guidelines explained at WP:5, (3) You will edit only from this account, regardless of whether it has been blocked and for what duration. causa sui (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
You were blocked all the way back in February of this year. Why did it take you this long to contest the block? Are you responsible for the edit history in the months leading up to your block, such as [1] and [2]? If not, how did the security breach occur and what have you done to prevent it occurring again? If so, what is your explanation and why should we not expect you to engage in such vandalism in the future? causa sui (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I was responsible for them because I thought it was funny I realize now that it isn't and that I must get a hold on myself you should believe because I know that if I do it again I will be blocked again without any hope of the block being lifted. The reason I took so long is I didn't have time to use the site anyway and I thought I should cool down first. Also I noticed it says "the reviewer is waiting for comment by the blocking administrator. I contacted him myself but he probably won't respond because he's been blocked himself. I'm not trying to make it about him or blame him I'm just saying since he's been blocked and you wait on him to make up your mind he might not respond to you. --FDR (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Also I'm actually now working as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SeoirseIII so the block affects my ip address and I'm now working constructively as you can see from my new account. So can it just be canceled? It would help me be able to work with my new account because the ip block affects my new account. --FDR (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SeoirseIII http://ga.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speisialta:Contributions/SeoirseIII http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SeoirseIII Here are my new accounts' contributions. --FDR (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course the block is affecting your "new" account; when YOU are blocked, it means that YOU AS A PERSON are blocked. Creating a new account in those circumstances is not permitted (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok now I understand I should not have used the SeoirseIII account. I'll wait until this ban is lifted to use an account, except on the separate wikipedias such as simple wikipedia because I don't believe the ban applies there. --FDR (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
You can have only one account. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. Since it seems you have been contributing productively I will unblock this account, but you will have to make a statement explicity choosing one account and agreeing to edit only from that account. causa sui (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree to only edit from this account called FDR from now on. --FDR (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
When does this block get lifted?--FDR (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
All right, I have unblocked you. As a condition of your unblock, (1) You will never vandalize Wikipedia and edit only constructively and in good faith, (2) You will strictly adhere to the core community expectations of Wikipedia, especially all of those policies and guidelines explained at WP:5, (3) You will edit only from this account, regardless of whether it has been blocked and for what duration. causa sui (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Does only editing from this account only merely apply to this wikipedia, or does it also apply to simple English wikipedia and foreign language wikipedias as well?--FDR (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Also I got this message saying I still cannot edit from this account You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address.


This is because someone using this internet address or shared proxy server was blocked. The ability of all users on this IP address to edit pages has been automatically suspended to prevent abuse by the blocked party. Innocent users are sometimes caught in an autoblock. It may be the case that you have done nothing wrong.

A user of this IP address was blocked by Rodhullandemu for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "FDR". The reason given for FDR's block is: "Vandalism: possibly compromised account".

This block has been set to expire: 18:52, 24 December 2011.

Note that you have not been blocked from editing directly. Most likely your computer is on a shared network with other people. --FDR (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I lifted the associated autoblock. Next time please use the unblock template provided - you're fortunate there's a few people watching you and your talkpage closely now :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Also could you answer my other question, does the ban on using accounts other than FDR only apply to this wikipedia, or does it apply to the basic English simple.wikipedia.org and foreign language wikipedias such as Irish ga.wikipedia.org as well or not?--FDR (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Your block was on English Wikipedia. The limitation presented is on English Wikipedia. Unless the other projects have enacted something similar, this does not apply there. Perhaps you may wish to unify all of your accounts with one (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Why do you say that unblocking this is looking more like a bad idea, I haven't even done anything with this account yet since I was unblocked?--FDR (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the past behavior is going to give everyone some pause and you will have to regain trust, as I hope you can understand. causa sui (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • What's the deal with your edits to the Sandbox? Wikipedia is not a dating service. causa sui (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
No kidding - now you're just simply fricking around. Are you here to build an encyclopedia, or be a pain in our asses? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I thought the sandbox was a joke, aren't we allowed to do whatever we want with it?Maybe I misunderstood if the sandbox is just as serious as the regular articles then I'll stop. I guess I misunderstood what it was. --FDR (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Let me quote you from above: "I was responsible for them because I thought it was funny I realize now that it isn't and that I must get a hold on myself you should believe because I know that if I do it again I will be blocked again without any hope of the block being lifted" ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but the difference is I only did it with the sandbox this time. Is the sandbox as serious as other parts of wikipeida, if it is I can't do that there either. --FDR (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The sandbox is for testing code, editing markups, not for being a WP:DICK or for jokes, or for violating WP:BLP. You claimed so much that you had done good edits with your illegal WP:EVADE account ... WTF is up with this bullcrap since people went out of their way to unblock you? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it would behoove you to focus all your efforts on showing that you are here to build the encyclopedia. causa sui (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Ages of consent in North America#Most common age[edit]

See the above linked discussion, especially the subsection below it, about your edits to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ages of consent in North America. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. causa sui (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:FDR at the Ages of consent in North America article and in general[edit]

You have been reported there because I don't have time for your crap. Why you were unblocked is beyond me. Flyer22 (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi, I am here as a result of the central discussion. Do you want to edit Wikipedia constructively? If you do, I can maybe help to point you towards useful things you can do. If you don't, it would be kinder all round to block you again as we all have better things to do. --John (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
John I decided to act normal from now on I've stopped I'll always go by what the sources say. I'll appease everyone from now on. Also I won't continue the edit war unless I can prove I was correct. --FDR (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally the reason I was unblocked was because I helped create some good articles such as the one about Catherine Radziwill, etc. --FDR (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
NO, you were unblocked because you convinced the community that the bullshit would not resume. We don't put up with stupidity just because you happened to create some good content (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
... and now that you have removed the post that my above statement was a reply to, it changes the entire meaning of the post. Although you're permitted to WP:REFACTOR to a degree, changing the meaning of previous posts/statements is not kosher (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll just realized my comment was stupid after you said that, that's why I took it down. You can just take your post down then if it bothers you. I'll still remember what you said, and it'll be in the history. --FDR (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

July 2012[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to United States presidential election, 2004, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. JOJ Hutton 01:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JOJ Hutton 01:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

FDR (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

This is my original account. I will not troll, make jokes, etc, anymore. I will only make constructive edits.

Decline reason:

You were using sockpuppet accounts as recently as 4 days ago...I odn't quite see you understanding the issues involved here. only (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.