User talk:Fat Irish Guy

RE: Haiti
It is semi-protected due to the extensively-long history of semi-protections. © Tb hotch ™ (en-3). 17:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response.

I’m guessing I just edit to reply to you. I don’t see another method. If not, please set me straight.

Wow! Who the heck would vandalize the Haiti page? 🤦🏻‍♂️ I thought I would try to work on the populations for the communes if I can find a good source.

Some have it in the 1st section and some don’t. Some are missing it entirely.
 * If you need information added to any protected page, consider following the instructions at Edit requests. Note that you have to be very specific about the changes and to include WP:Sources. © Tb hotch ™ (en-3). 21:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with... I’m a new editor. I’ve done a number of minor edits (copy edits mainly) and I’d like to try something bigger. A particular article was severely altered (damaged IMO) back in April 2018 by a person who ended up blocked as a vandal. He or she wiped out whole article sections (I don’t know if it was intentional; we’ll give them the benefit of the doubt).

I’d like to revert a couple of their big changes and I guess I’m a little nervous about it. I get a wee bit confused looking at other’s previous revisions.

Any guidance you could give me would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Fat Irish Guy (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Fat Irish Guy (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think the removed material helps the article and otherwise follows policy (i.e. isn't a copyright violation, isn't promotional, has proper references), then by all means go ahead and add it back in. If someone other than the blocked user reverts it, that can be the start of a conversation on the talk page where the two of you can discuss the material and reasons for including or excluding it.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with... I made a lot of edits yesterday (I’m guessing 60-80) and I noticed that none are reflected in my Edit Count. Is there a system problem, am I doing something wrong or what?

Thanks. Fat Irish Guy (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * xtools sometimes lags behind the actual counts (there used to be a notice about that somewhere...). Given that it says your last edit was two days ago, which is clearly not the case, I think there's nothing to do but wait. Primefac (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with... Help me!

I’m a new editor. I’m still learning but I need some help.

I’ve been going back and forth on an article (Jill Kelley) with another editor. I’ve carefully gone over the article and documented my changes including the rationale. I’m certain it’s someone related to the subject. This article has been the subject of a lot of back and forth since 2013. In my opinion, the subject or someone related to the subject is constantly sanitizing the article. I honestly believe this person has a conflict of interest and has already acted under a series of user names acting the same way and attempting to make the same changes.

Recently, they refer to the content of private emails they’d only have access to if they were the subject of the article or a representative of the subject of the article.

I put it in the article talk page with an invitation to discuss it and eventually just suggested we get the admins involved and let them decide. I let it sit for a few days and then another individual popped in and started essentially making changes. They’re obviously very proficient but their user name is only a little over a week old.

It seems fishy to me.

Can you advise me on how to get the appropriate persons involved or how to report this appropriately?

Thanks. Fat Irish Guy (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It sounds like the place to go with this would be Conflict of interest/Noticeboard but please be aware that if you report another editor for alleged misconduct, your own actions are likely to also be scrutinized; at least one editor seems to believe you are the one with a conflict of interest (which could just be a deflection tactic of course; I have no opinion on the matter). Good luck. 78.28.55.91 (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the response. The “other editor” is the same person and I can prove it. Fat Irish Guy (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Something is very much going on with that article. Beach drifter (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You both might find the comments and behavior at Articles for deletion/Nick Roes illuminating. Fishy is also my impression. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Pleas for help lack honesty & integrity
User:Fat_Irish_guy Your claims about the email in your comment and pleas for help above are incorrect. Those emails from the Petraeus scandal are available online, you can look at redacted emails at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/02/03/you-rock-excerpts-of-e-mail-conversations-between-a-tampa-socialite-and-two-high-ranking-military-officials/. Although I have seen some of your edits which delete valid sources, and then further edit the article to claim there are no valid sources. Asking for help like this as a means to mask your tracks of what is starting to feel like stalking leans toward disturbing. I am happy to let any unbiased, unconnected you editor weigh in on the content of the Kelley page, and to have any admin involved take a look at it. Regarding Kelley page - as WP:BLP cautions - care must be taken to not slander living people. Wikipedia is not a battlefield, yet sadly, your editing behabior would make it seem so.10Sany1? (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Your response is a pretty typical example of aberrant behavior. Yet another personal attack based on literally nothing. Accused of “stalking leans towards disturbing,” even though I haven’t commented since 28 October. That’s 19 days by my count. If I’m a disturbed stalker, I’m certainly not very dedicated to it.

Your comments about my edits are equally ridiculous.

Fat Irish Guy (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

FYI since we disagree on bits of content on Kelley page that I have submitted for dispute resolution so that other unrelated editors can weigh in. I take particular care on WP:BLP because statements handled in a less than careful manner, when negative, can bring undue harm to subject. I have no personal interest other than adhering to wp:BLP rules.10Sany1? (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I just saw this and it’s late where I am. I’ll respond tomorrow. Fat Irish Guy (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Mitchell WerBell sources
In reference to the page of Mitchell WerBell, I noticed that you removed the reference to OSS agents receiving payment in the form of five-pound sacks of opium. The claim was sourced to the Wall Street Journal on April 18, 1980, and I spent a few hours last night trying to find more citation information or a copy of the article itself, but was unable to find anything. Would you mind pointing me in the direction of the material you were able to find to verify? Thanks! Neighborhood Review (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

OSS agents were members of the US military. The US government doesn’t pay and has never paid its military with 5 pound bags of opium. If that incredible claim is going to be made then it needs to be backed with a verifiable and credible source. That vague source only lists a publication and a date. No article title, no author, no link to the article itself. Nothing substantial enough to qualify it as a credible source.

If you google, “Mitch Werbell death,” you’ll get a number of sources pop up including a write up from the NYT. If you peruse those sources you’ll see where most of this article was cribbed from but never sourced.

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

January 2023
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to 1994 Winter Olympics, appears to have been inappropriate, and has been reverted. Please feel free to 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. ''It wasn't a typo. Please read the ref.'' David Biddulph (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I do appreciate the correction. It does appear I made a mistake. I thank you for that. However, I’ve made plenty of other contributions in the past. I’m not certain why you feel it’s appropriate to be so condescending to me about it as if I’ve never done an edit. I’m no expert but I do act in good faith and I will be more careful in the future. Fat Irish Guy (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)