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:

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]

Source

Please explain what is not a poorly referenced source, I first quoted news18.com which is one of the top websites in India mentioning TLP to be from a Barelvi school of Islamic thought whose head is Imaam Ahmed Raza Khan, as per Wikipedia itself. Please guide me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.164.159.24 (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Credibility on sites and opinion on AFD

Hey FDW777, I noticed your opinion posted on the discussion regarding a Dexerto article, could you kindly assess the credibility and reliability of a few Esports articles pages, I feel you understand the credibility best and will be able to give a proper opinion. The pages are Win.GG, Esportmaniacos (in Spanish) and Esports.net. Also there is an ongoing AFD, that I have proposed regarding Kkatamina and the article pages I had mentioned above, have been referenced in the article, if you could provide an opinion on the subject's notability as of now and the page, it would be great for the discussion. thanks again! Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 20:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help with name on Kilmichael article

Hey, FDW777. I've been doing some edits on the Kilmichael Ambush and want your input on a minor issue I have encountered. I know a matter like this would be better off discussed on the article's talk page, but it has been inactive since 2018, so I decided to come here because I have talked with you before and I know that you frequently edit articles relating to the IRA. Here's the issue I want to discuss: in the ambush section, towards the end when it talks about the British casualties it gives the name of the Auxiliary that survived as H.F. Forde. However, I typed the name up in the search engine and discovered this website which gives his name as Frederick Henry Forde. I've have read it and it is definitely the same guy. I'm hesitant to make any edit citing this, however, because I've checked Google Books and the books I can find all refer to him as the first name as you can see in: #1, #2 and #3. I do still think the website has some merit to it because it shows pictures of primary sources that seem to confirm it as Frederick Forde. But because of the first name is more prevalent in books talking about the subject, I'm not sure if that would outweigh the website. What do you think? Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Real IRA

Hi there, why did you remove my addition here? Your justification really doesn't meet the requirements for the removal...Alssa1 (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What part of badly referenced (see WP:SPS, that's someone's personal website) and/or a violation of WP:LEAD do you not understand? FDW777 (talk) 07:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I’m responding here because I’m 99% sure, based on the article on which they choose to make their only single comment, their location, their rhetoric, and their service provider, that the ip is a sock of the ~~unfairly attacked and put upon female editor~~, wait ~~aging Scottish naval officer~~ reality-denying ideological warrior for the Tory regime that we’ve seen umpteen times before, and I intend to delete their comment, as per WP:BE.

This is just for info. The sources on the UKIM article that are currently numbered 2, 3, 7, and 8 (Dougan Hayward et al., Wincott et al. and Lydgate) actually make a different (and opposite) argument to the one you outline in your response to the ip. They state in some detail how there are multiple approaches to the problem of preventing internal trade barriers, and for various reasons this choice is the least appropriate and was not the initial route taken. This is why several of the authors state that the restriction is intentional - they had other options open to them but they chose the sub optimal policy choice - instead opting for one that restricts the action of the devolved institutions. There are well-informed suggestions as to why they look to this additional aim in the paper by Billy Melo Araujo (essentially, foreign trade negotiating position). Cambial — foliar❧ 23:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleat that section?

Man why you deleat the section? Why you use WP:EVASION ? Whats puppets mean? Please answear and not deleat that section.