User talk:FDR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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)

Contents

[edit] Please sign on talk pages

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)


[edit] Answer

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

[edit] Retraction

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)

[edit] Delete

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)

[edit] Neutral POV

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)

[edit] Cowan disambiguation page

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)

[edit] Additions to Freemasonry

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)

[edit] Please cite sources

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)

[edit] Help with Nominating for Deletion

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)
  • I am going to remove the entry of Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Megan Marshak from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 8 page, because it is a red link. This is just a formatting/cleanup decision on my part; please feel free to follow the steps to nominate the article for deletion as indicated above if you still believe the article should be deleted. --Metropolitan90 15:15, 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)

[edit] Freemasonry

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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/d/r/User_talk%7EFDR_b075.html"