User talk:FFM784

/Archive 1 (2014 – 2021)

Hi FFM784, I have a question regarding Hannover Messe and your edit with comment: "Removed simple listing of all past fairs since the list has no contextual information associated with it and is unencyclopedic. Ref: Wikipedia is not a directory WP:NOTDIRECTORY".

I know that it is of interest for the Hannover Messe visitors which country and when was the partner country. Each partner country at the official trade fair opening event presents extended artistic performance connected to the country's history and culture so it's a big deal who is it (perhaps it is worthy to add this info to the Hannover Messe). I don't agree it is unencyclopedic. I rather see it as the Olympics - it is important which country was the host... Perhaps the main section was not the right place for this list - please consider putting it bact in a dedicated subsection. Aclub.biz (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the note. I would suggest that you add the list back to the article then at the same time open discussion on this topic on the Talk page for the Hannover Messe article. This would allow any interested editors to discuss how to deal with this and the move forward. Thanks FFM784 (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know I hate to bug you give how much it upsets me revisions are but Public Radio International merged with Public Radio Exchange (PRX) way before the 2010's ended. It's a very simple reason. I've done it with other Public Radio Stations that has programming formerly distributed by PRI and they were completely fine with it. 20chances (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but my reason for the revert was simply that you did not leave an edit summary. See WP:FIES Without an edit summary how are people like me supposed to know understand why the edit was made? Please help us all by including an edit summary with your edits. Thanks. FFM784 (talk) 11:49, 17 August 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) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Here is other source if you doubt

https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-son-of-democrat-house-minority-whip-katherine-clark-arrested-for-assaulting-cop-during-boston-antifa-event Artedm (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

another source [1] Artedm (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston Herald article says nothing about Katherine Clark. Her son's name, according to the Boston Globe, is Riley. The person booked was named Jared. Whatever the case, the person arrested is not a notable person on Wikipedia so this in all likelyhood does not belong on Wikipedia per WP:SUSPECT FFM784 (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the Boston Herald article does say Katherine Clark and see Katherine Clark's response [2] Artedm (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the updated version of the article has Katherine Clark's name listed and it is clear now that the arrested person was a child of hers. I'd suggest exploring this further on the Talk page for Katherine Clark. FFM784 (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on the photos i added? Trade (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which photo are you referring too? FFM784 (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The photos in this Commons category Trade (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great photos. Clearly it was awful scene that night with the train cars burning. Thank you for sharing your images and video on Wikimedia Commons so that others are able to view the scene and appreciate your work. FFM784 (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer would be thunderlips36. I was more talking about the placement of the photos in the article and the captions. I dont have much experience placing photos or writing captions into articles --Trade (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, got it. I think all of your captions are good. Running the images down the right is one way to do it and in this case it looks fine. You might want to move the image of the NS crews cleaning up the site up a bit so that its closer to the Emergency response section. Since this is a heavily edited article its likely that someone will come along before too long and move one or the other image around. Hope that helps a bit. FFM784 (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got some new photos of the park. Do you think any of them should be added? --Trade (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these have already been posted. They others I'd say are not so notable. Someone though did add the trailer with the supplies be delivered. FFM784 (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What photos from East Palestine do you want for the article? Trade (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert of Quebec Central Railway may be "unnecessary" but it is useful to our Wikipedia users. Also, most railway articles in Wikipedia (including the companies, lines and stations) all use the "start/end data and age" templates, so your revert now makes this article inconsistent with the rest of of Wikipedia. One of the main guidelines of Wikipedia, and for that matter, any encyclopedia, is consistency of data and information, and well as making it useful to user. Would you please reconsider your revert. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FFM784 is entirely correct here. That template is absolutely unnecessary except for ongoing events. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with your statement that the addition of the "Age as of date" template to this article is useful to Wikipedia users. No one reading the article really needs to know or cares that the year 1869 is 154 years ago, and the year 1994 is 29 years ago, and the year 2000 is 23 years ago, and the year 2006 is 17 years ago. Just because this template exists doesn't mean that it must to be applied to this or any other article. FFM784 (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FFM784,

I saw your edit summary on New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad, removing a category and stating "Chapter 11" was not created until 1978. But if you look at Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy by year, you'll see companies listed as filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy going back to 1875 and many years prior to 1978. Do you want to reconsider your removal of this category from this article? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note and for pointing this out. I continue to believe that the edit that I made was appropriate and that similar edits should be made to all of the articles that using the "Chapter 11" wording prior to 1978. I don't have time at the moment to make these changes but I plan to in April, unless someone gets to it before me.FFM784 (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no appreciation of your interventions on my edits, first of all if I mark as 'minor' some contributions like wikifying some terms (which I usually do in order to make easier for the casual reader to delve into topics that may be interesting but unfamiliar, without compelling the reader to enter the text in the search bar but instead relying on the very core function of a wiki) and I do respect the general rules published in the Wikipedia proper sections, I feel unappropriate to invade my activity. I never used unappropriate language nor I intentionally violated any of the rules in such a way to earn me a reprimand. And if I add a section in an existing page linking to the contents of another existing page, I find ill-mannered to have it completely deleted without any prior discussion. If Wikipedia is to become a space for fascist behaviours like this then I am going to quit supporting it and I'll seriously consider before providing any more funding (I have been actively supporting it with real world money in the last 10 years...). Corrado72 (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate under Wikipedia's policies to suggest that my edits constitute "facisist behaviors" as you have done in your comment above. Please review WP:TPNO before making additional comments on any Wikipedia Talk page.

I reverted your recent edit to the IBM 5100 article because a citation was not provided to support the text that you added to the article. As noted in WP:CITE, "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." In my experience over the past ten or so years I have observed that it is not uncommon for editors to simply revert someone's edit, as I did, when a citation is needed but has not been provided. If you feel that a citation is not needed then I would suggest that you place a comment on the IBM 5100 talk page so that other can weigh in. Thanks.FFM784 (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got a new picture. Do you think it should be added to the article?--Trade (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say since I'm no longer actively following this article on Wikipedia. If you're on the fence about adding an image to an article I would suggest that you post it on the article's Talk page and ask others to comment whether the image should be added. FFM784 (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FFM784, I'm quite puzzled how my edit [[3]] managed to delete all the material about New York as well as the citations. My intent was only to correct the erroneous Chicago material, and to not touch the remaining text in this section. I can't blame anyone for reverting something this messed up! I'll repair and resubmit – hopefully more surgically this time. JonRoma (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I understand. Two thoughts that may be helpful — sometimes when I make an edit something happens that I didn't intend to happen. When this occurs I simply revert my own edit and try again. Second, in my view it is often better to make a series of edits rather than a massive edit that changes a lot of text all at once, in particular when you suspect that other editors may have concerns with some of the changes. Food for thought, as some say. FFM784 (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in a sockpuppet investigation I raised regarding a user you recently warned. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alfonso Liner. Thanks, Fork99 (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the head up. Looks like the same person to me. They also appears have edited using the name "AB Liner Inc." which is now permanently blocked.FFM784 (talk) 21:42, 26 June 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) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Norman Lear, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Television Academy. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pocasset, Massachusetts has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited East-West Passenger Rail (Massachusetts), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Push-pull.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are in an edit war to remove the presidential election results. I agree with you that they are excessive statistics. Over the years, I recall having a few talk page discussions about the inclusion of these stats, but no firm consensus. I'll revert a few of the edits, and see if it can go to a discussion or maybe an RfC. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whaldude:@ColForbin123:

Thank you for stepping in here.

Here is some background that my be helpful:

On October 7th I noticed that User:Whaldude was systematically added a table of presidential election results to a great many articles on Wikipedia. I reverted some of this users edits because it was clear to me that they were not appropriate per WP:NOTSTATS.

On October 9th I posted a comment on User talk:Whaldude asking this user pause their effort until consensus was reached on whether these tables should be added indiscriminately to so many pages. The user did not respond to the comment that I left on the users talk page but they did stop adding the table to additional articles.

On October 11th I started removing the many presidential election results pages that had been added by User:Whaldude.

Then on October 16th User:ColForbin123 started reverting my edits that removed the presidential election results tables, which effectively restored these tables.

So as to not appear to be in an edit war I will not remove any of the presidential election results tables that were added or readded. I will leave that to other editors who have the experience necessary to resolve this situation.

Thank you FFM784 (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I was just saying I think it's important to have the stats that people have compiled over the years. I have been updating updated voter enrollment totals for the upcoming election, so we know the percentage of turnout is. I believe these statistics are important, especially in the next month.

-Chris ColForbin123 (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FFM784, I see that you reverted my Central Massachusetts Railroad anchor. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Massachusetts_Railroad&diff=prev&oldid=1253237188 I was only following the instructions at Template:Anchor which say to put these Anchors into sections "since links to a section will not work if a section is renamed", and says to use this format == Section header<span class="anchor" id="Anchor name"></span> ==, and I want to directly link to this section.

What is the right thing to do? Thanks. Rocketwidget (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was fine and mine was not, so I've reverted my edit. I should have read MOS:SECTIONANCHOR before I reverted your work. My apologies.FFM784 (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok no worries, thank you! Rocketwidget (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]