User talk:Fdom5997

This is Fdom5997's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1: 3 months

Revert regarding Silesian vowels

Hi, the revert was made due to no source being given, but the vowel chart already has a source attached to it. In the source, the sound given is [ȯ] rather than [o], which according to the Slavistic Phonetic Alphabet, corresponds to [ɔ̇], or in other words, [o̞]/[ɔ̝]. Vxern (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well then that is the narrow phonetic transcription, and the phoneme should be linked and displayed as /o/ but phonetically linked as [ɔ̝]. Fdom5997 (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Yacàwotçã (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

Hello! I'm Yacàwotçã. I just wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to the page Dzubukuá language have been reverted because they appear to have added incorrect information. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source, discuss it on the article's talk page, or leave me a message on my talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Yacàwotçã (talk) 05:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully requesting that you stop editing topics with which you are not familiar and whose language of study you admittedly do not speak (that is, Portuguese). Otherwise, I will have to review your edits and collect evidence that you have been adding factually incorrect information to articles that go far beyond the Kariri languages. Thank you, Yacàwotçã (talk) 05:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, consider this my last warning. Yacàwotçã (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What "factually incorrect" info? Like the arrangement of a phonetic chart? Don't make me laugh. Fdom5997 (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no /ae/ in Dzubukuá. Queiroz clearly states (in Portuguese) it's a Kipeá phoneme. Yacàwotçã (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well how about take a look on pages 72 and 75 of that source. Fdom5997 (talk) 05:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Allo)phone =/= phoneme. The table is clear. Thanks for showing you don't know the very basic of phonology. Yacàwotçã (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well then why don't we add notes then? Fdom5997 (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yacàwotçã (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note

In regards to this I've quietly reverted myself since I didn't mean what apparently it meant to you. English is not my native language and some cognates in Portuguese may have a slightly different meaning and usage than they do in English. Sorry and much appreciated, Yacàwotçã (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Message

I happened to look at your user page and saw that you have obsessive–compulsive disorder. I had it too. Is that perhaps why you go around modifying the phonemic tables of languages you have absolutely no interest in, and whose studies are written in languages you don't even speak? How many languages do you know, if I may ask, and what is your academic background?

My suggestion, if "sloppy" tables make you itch and fume so much, my suggestion is to seek a consensus in the proper venue so that the Manual of Style contains clear instructions on how to transfer tables from reliable sources into Wikipedia. Until such guidelines exist, what reliable sources use is what stands, and I will not accept controversial changes.

I'm going to expand the articles on the four Kariri varieties (whose names, I presume, you couldn't even recall without looking them up). I will follow the sources strictly, as I've done in linguistics articles such as Le langaige du Bresil, and if you try to force your point of view there, I will have to revert you – and you will eventually be blocked. If I am as well (which is not my intention at all), so be it, but I value factual correctness. Your behavior is predictable, and I know very well where this will end: with a ban or an edit filter, not to mention the countless damaged articles left along the way. I'll edit them as I intend to work on these languages in Wiktionary (where, by the way, I saw you've already gotten into an edit war with the administrator User:Theknightwho – showing your petty modus operandi).

My suggestion is that you stick to what you know, and if you wish to learn, do so – and only edit once you're confident. Thanks to you, there's now an avoidable factual error. Would you like me to email the author of the thesis to ask him about it? I've already exchanged messages with him. Or would you rather your mistake not be categorically confirmed by a specialist whose authority even you don't dare to deny? As I said, your fate – as long as you keep this up – is predictable. I have time. Best regards, Yacàwotçã (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Stop undoing my edits that show the actual realization of phonemes Stemova11 (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are not sourced, so yes I have to undo them, because they are misinfo. Fdom5997 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yacàwotçã (talk) 07:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, am I gonna get banned :(, plz dont ban me Stemova11 (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, as exemplified by this. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Hammersoft (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on Shetland dialect

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 20:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks, please

Hello, I'm Augmented Seventh. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Augmented Seventh (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Svan characters

Hi, you have reverted my edit regarding letters ჸ and ჶ which don't exist in Svan, however this can be confirmed by multiple sources, such as Varlam Topuria's "სვანური ენის სახელმძღვანელო", Medea Saghliani's "ვისწავლოთ სვანური", ზ. ჭუმბურიძე, ლ. ნიჟარაძე, რ. ქურდაძე - "სვანური ენა". I could add these references if necessary. Skypshr (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it’s not a reliable one. But the sounds are already cited. Fdom5997 (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; as much as I love Omniglot, it sometimes gets information wrong (not even sure where it got that alphabet table from, its sources are quite vague). As I study Svan, I've found materials to be very scarce and often inexact, and, as locals may confirm, Topuria should likely be considered one of only reliable authorities concerning this language. Skypshr (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should note, the letter ვ is also practically nonexistent in the language, but kept for words imported from Georgian. The Georgian Wikipedia version of this page, which has a correct table of consonants, marks it with [ვ], also following Topuria's notation, but lacking further clarification regarding the sound. Skypshr (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Deleting 'citation needed' tags may get you blocked for vandalism. What's the point? If you know the information is correct, just add the source. — kwami (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are listed in the bibliography section. Not all citations are inline. Fdom5997 (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They should be. — kwami (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

those damned charts, again

If you're going to be so stuck up about using your own version over the authors' actual charts, then do it consistently. May as well list every allophone in parentheses in all of the charts. ~ oklopfer (💬) 07:09, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, not every allophone. That should at least be the case with /s/ before /i/ in Chungli Ao, as it is much more of a consistent and common allophone. It’s really not that much of an inconvenience. As long as we don’t add a whole separate row for allophones, why not? Fdom5997 (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you pointed out on @Kepler-1229b's talk page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics/Phonetics/Phonology template says they normally should not be included, per community consensus (which you constantly fight against, rather WP:NOTHERE behavior). However, you seem to have missed the point of that line, since the full block reads:

Parentheses may be used to set off marginal phonemes, or ones found only in loanwords, for example (m); the meaning of the parentheses should be explained in the text. Allophones are not normally shown, being relegated to the section on allophony below, but may be presented when it is not clear which should be taken as the default allophone of the phoneme. In such cases they should be clearly marked as variants of the same phoneme, for example m ~ mb, and not set off in separate cells.

It's about how a naive reader interprets the charts we present to them. There is a standard meaning prescribed to the symbology. If we conflate usages of parentheses, particularly within the same chart, then it becomes confusing for the reader, even more if we do this across numerous pages. For Temsu's chart, where he lists no marginal phonemes, it might be okay to list the allophones which he includes on his chart in parentheses, instead of the square brackets he uses (though as the template suggests, they should probably be written with a tilde, and on the same cell, if listed at all; really depends if it is actually free variation). But with Bruhn and Gowda's charts, you now have the parentheses serving double purpose - sometimes for marginal/loan phonemes, sometimes for allophones. A naive reader won't know the difference. That's why it's inconvenient. ~ oklopfer (💬) 07:49, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well in the case of parentheses with double-purpose, in order to distinguish, then there must be notes written below to explain the use of the parentheses in context. Either that or just use phonetic brackets (which may be better). I do not think displaying the allophones in the chart-however, should be forbidden, but it’s mostly not recommended. However, I do believe that it is utterly silly (unless when displaying the articulations) to “make sure” we get the chart to look *exactly* like it does in the source. Otherwise then it’s just for cosmetic purposes. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they should look exactly like the source charts, but that we should not be adding content to them that does not appear in them, such as allophones. Square brackets are also neither of the recommendations from the template. And again, if you are going to be forcing a page to be your way, then at least be diligent and consistent. I've corrected your sloppiness on the page again. But I think it's very likely that one of the other two editors who has been working on the page will remove the allophones appearing in square brackets. If they do, I strongly suggest you leave it be. Your belligerence, uncooperativeness, and edit warring to exhaustion are not any behaviors that belong on this platform. ~ oklopfer (💬) 13:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fdom5997 This isn't about conformity to the charts in the original. This is about potentially misguiding readers about the phonemic status of allophones. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:48, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And that is literally the exact reason why if we still want to put them in the chart, we must always transcribe them with the phonetic brackets []. Or else it is really misleading without them, and that is when the readers will be confused. Fdom5997 (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But why put them in the chart in the first place, when established guidelines dictate otherwise? If a chart with all allophones is desired, then create a new chart labeled as including allophones separate from the phonemic chart. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What “guidelines”? It’s all just useless red-tape. A phonology chart is a chart. Not a regulation. Fdom5997 (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines as linked on my talk page discussion. A phonology chart dictates the phonology, not phonetics, of a language. If you really want to add allophones to a chart, just separate them from the main chart. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pathetic rule though. Phonology charts are *mostly* phonemes. But there should be exceptions involved, as long as the brackets are added. Fdom5997 (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. The very purpose of a phonology chart is to include phonemes and nothing else. Marginal or loanword phonemes can be included with parentheses, but there is no reason why non-phonemes, such as allophones, should be in a chart for phonemes. Whether you think such a rule is "pathetic" is irrelevant towards long-established consensus in the field. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:58, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s very close-minded thinking. We should at least be allowed to include minimal pairs or positional variants. You shouldn’t have the right to dictate how everyone makes their charts, by some stupid rule that was made up. If you’re gonna do that, then you’ll have to correct the many thousands of other charts that display some allophones all across the site. I’ve been doing this for 8 years now. As long as they are marked correctly, we should have a right to display them in the chart too. Fdom5997 (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minimal pairs are sets of two words that differ by onbe phoneme and therefore establish phonemicity. These do not belong in the chart, but would be included elsewhere in the phonology section. It's not just me who's dictating the "stupid" rule. Ask the other editors who have also been involved in these discussions. There is a place for allophones, and that is in a separate chart from the phoneme charts. Feel free to add them separately, but not part of the phonology chart. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:34, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the alveolar affricate appears in Gowda's work, too, just not in the chart, just as the palatal fricative does not appear in his or Bruhn's. The main point of showing the 3 different charts at this point is to show where they differ. If you are converging them, then we should just go back to Gowda's. ~ oklopfer (💬) 13:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not converging any of the charts. If were are going to display the different distinctions in the phonological info, then we really should list all of the three charts. Fdom5997 (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They absolutely have been converged - their actual differences have been minimized by (selectively) adding in the allophones they report; and essentially all of the differences that do exist are already explained in the article, or are otherwise negligible. Compare Special:Permalink/1327990617 to Special:Permalink/1328023260. The differences now are:

how they label the places of articulation (mostly described in the article)
how they separate the lateral and rhotic (latter already described in the article, former negligible)
how they transcribe/describe the palatals (already described in the article)
whether they consider the alveolar affricate to be a distinct phoneme (already described in the article)
whether they include the marginal phoneme /h/ (already described in the article)

Whereas before, it clearly showed the authors' varying selectivity of including the alveolar affricate and palatal fricative, which is arguably important. It is bloat at this point, as they've become nearly redundant to each other.

Plus, the only allophones not included now are for the plosives, which all authors agree on the distribution of, and Gowda's report of the voiced palatal affricate. Why are we considering the other allophones worthy of inclusion and not these? It's not like they are any less "consistent and common allophones" than you are claiming the others to be. ~ oklopfer (💬) 18:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning for that is because those allophones [ts, ʃ] are included in the other author's works. And as you just said before, even the other authors themselves are selective in displaying which allophones could be in the chart. None of the authors would have agreed to display any of the allophones of the plosives, and they clearly did not do that.

So then the answer is yes, there is some convergence here, but so what if there is and why should that be forbidden? It would be incredibly ridiculous to go back to only displaying Gowda's, or displaying only one of any of the other charts. Fdom5997 (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, the point of showing the different charts in the first place is to demonstrate exactly that, their differences. If you converge them, then that purpose of displaying them as separate entities loses its meaning. We should be highlighting their actual differences, instead of forcing our own opinions of what should be added to them so that they look more similar to each other. Being personally selective is biased, not encyclopedic; we should stick to the authors' selectivity. ~ oklopfer (💬) 04:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but why do we need to excessively analyze just these charts? Why do we need to care about them being “separate entities”? And there are already quite a few differences within each chart, despite the slight convergence. It honestly seems pretty weird and it really isn’t something that affects any reader in the slightest. This genuinely all seems like pure pedantry. Fdom5997 (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what pedantry means, and your name calling is exhausting. Stop being so uncivil and refusing to collaborate. You have more than just me here asking you to stop going against community consensus. You were blocked a month and a half ago for this identical behavior, and it is getting to the point where if it continues, I will bring it back to AN/I. Please change your attitude towards other editors and the community at large. ~ oklopfer (💬) 12:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let’s just forget about the allophones now. I see you removed them from Bruhn’s chart, and let’s just move forward. Fdom5997 (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But still, you didn’t answer my question. Whether some allophones are there or not, it really shouldn’t matter, because at the end of the day, most readers can understand it. As long as they’re transcribed correctly. Fdom5997 (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because in general we should be analyzing and reporting, not interpreting (or if necessary, interpreting as little as possible). Interpretation is for the reader to do with the information we present to them, and the authors evidently had reason for their choices of what ought to be included in their charts, whatever those reasons may be. It is somewhat of a disservice if we close those gaps for a reader to interpret on their own, based on the authors' work. ~ oklopfer (💬) 18:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is recurring pattern of WP:NOTHERE on linguistics pages. ~ oklopfer (💬) 23:54, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

To go through the motions, I'm formally warning you before reporting you for 3RR.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. — kwami (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hold the horses

I would disagree with this characterization. Of the 5 other people (besides yourself) currently involved in the discussion, 4 of them (including myself) have suggested that there must be a clear and maintained distinction between phonemic and phonetic charts, and the 5th has suggested only calling them phonetic charts. Consensus certainly has not been reached yet, and essentially everyone has asked you to stop warring over this until the discussion has reached a settled point, including an uninvolved third party on AN/I. You just picked up on one person's comment and immediately started running with it, which they themselves then asked you to stop warring. I appreciate that you have been keeping (most of) your comments in a more civil tone, but please be more patient with the process; you are jumping the gun. ~ oklopfer (💬) 22:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well so far I need to read all of them and better comprehend what they said, TLDR. Fdom5997 (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also strongly suggest ceasing interaction with kwami wherever possible, as you both get at each others' throats very quickly, and it makes it difficult for others to come in to try to cool things down. From my perspective, it is getting fairly close to the need for an WP:IBAN between each other, which puts an unfortunate blocker on constructiveness. ~ oklopfer (💬) 22:22, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User talk page conduct

Please read and understand WP:DRRC and WP:REMOVED for guidance on editor expectations on others' user talk pages. Van Isaac, GHTV^contr_about 22:36, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for incivility and hounding following an ANI report.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Wug·a·po·des 07:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this block. Your behavior is completely out of line with our conduct policies. That, combined with a demonstrated unwillingness to modify your behavior shows you are incompatible with this community. Thus, a temporary block will not be useful. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Block appeal

This 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).

Fdom5997 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I personally feel that this block is not justified (not just for me but for any other overall good-faith editor). For one of the reasons being that I am aware that I was wrong in my obsessive and persistent reverts of changes to articles, edit-wars, hounding and incivility. For that I sincerely apologize and will do as much as I can to work on not persistently reverting other edits (unless they are vandalisms or unsourced info or evidently factually wrong) or engaging in edit-wars and instead use talk pages, provided that I explain myself in a civil manner without any vicious attacks towards other users, and not resort to edit-warring and hounding as well. I hope that it does not seem too soon or too late for me to already address my flawed behavior, but as of now, I have spent the past days doing so. All of the edits that I intend to publish and have published before, truly are in good-faith from me, despite the amount of times that I do and did mess up in my constant stubbornness, reverts, edit-warring, hounding and incivility. But for the record, all the times that I did engage in all of those bad behaviors, and even went out of my way to try to force my interpretations on others, eventually I did concede to them (the other users), and realized that they were correct and I then saw the light. So for that, I am open to improvement, criticism and addressing my errors as well. I am aware that I truly messed up while I was still working on trying to pass consensus regarding my proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages/Linguistics to include *some* allophones in phonological charts across the various language phonology sections on each page. I was quite a bit impatient, and truly should have waited until everything was settled, case in point: these revisions [1] and [2]. Not to mention but in three of the cases that I was reported on (specifically in August 2025 between me, and users Timthemanofficial and Manaaki teatuareo), these were instances where these two users were changing up and altering the information in the articles and replacing it with either unsourced info that was not proven to be correct according to any citation, or information based on non-reliable sources (in the case of Manaaki teatuareo). That being said, I still may have resorted to incivility, hounding and obsessive-reverts of edits and edit-warring, to which I do take back and will continue to work on moving forward. I understand how it is important that I break those habits, and am open in the future on anything I can do to improve myself and my behavior, and try to prevent my bad behavior from coming back. I have also been diagnosed with an obsessive-compulsive disorder, and overall struggle with mental health (specifically with a general anxiety/depression disorder). A lot of times, that tends to get in the way of how I function properly in my day-to-day life. But I always try to overcome and advocate for myself, and try to not to let my disability get the best of me as an individual. And one of those ways, is embracing my hobby here, which is making notable contributions to the site and to the project, regarding publishing info regarding languages across each page. Over the past 8 years that I have been editing on Wikipedia, I do admit that I have had several quarrels with other users, but overall, I have been able to work things out with other users by hearing them out, engaging in discussion and debate, listening to their ideas and any other information they cite from other sources, and vice-versa. And in a lot of cases, I was wrong and they were right. Some of them even proved to me that the information that I cited, was not correctly cited from the source that I used, or that some of the info was even left out from the sources I used. In many cases I actually did do the right thing and did use a talk-page in order to strike a discussion that I felt was necessary. And I am also for the most part, truly open to any substantive or constructive criticisms, discussions or differing views regarding any of my edits. I deeply feel that overall my edits have been very productive and good-faith and I have worked incredibly hard in order to search for reliable sources from all across the internet and even access and receive sources from beyond and from distant libraries or from authors themselves. I feel that I have made great contributions to all the language pages that I have edited all across the site, especially regarding the phonology sections and I would surely continue to provide productive edits to add to each article-section. As a linguistics/anthropology major myself, I am aware that phonology may not be the *only* significant factor of linguistics, but I do feel that it is a key first-step in understanding the basic fundamentals of any language whether it be existing, endangered, revitalized or extinct. The main reason why I want to be a part of this project is sincerely because I want to improve the site, and to improve the language pages and information, and make sure that they are properly cited with good sources as well. I am also open to other solutions, if there exists information published with conflicting information per another source, or more than one source as well. Maybe I still have my flaws in my behavior and differing opinions, but my objective is still the same as any other user or editor on here, especially in making the information published and displayed, accurate, and also be easily legible, understandable and comprehensive for any other viewers or readers, or users out there. I have a deep and sincere compassion for human-rights causes all across the world regarding any identity or background. If you look at my user-page you will see exactly what causes I stand by and for, by taking a look at all the userboxes that I have labeled across my page. And for the record, I do not just simply have them all there just for that purpose alone. I sincerely stand by each and every one of them, or at least strive to do so. Every human being deserves love, justice and prosperity regardless of their race, color, ethnicity, faith, culture, immigration, identity, gender/sex, sexuality, size/height/weight, disability or age. For that I have a deep passion and compassion for any language or culture, and deeply, sincerely believe that every language, race, ethnicity and culture is sacred, and must be nurtured and aided in order to preserve and embrace it. However; with all of that said, I am still aware that I have been a bit uncivil and ruthless at times, but deep inside, it may truly stem from my passion for publishing the correct information, as well as for cultural/linguistic awareness in human language and human cultures. I truly hope that I made myself clear here. As fellow users across the site, we may all tend to resort to *some* incivility towards other users (or especially IPs) to one way or another, if we are truly passionate about what we believe and the info we cite, but I do sincerely believe that it is important to acknowledge those flaws, be open to self-improvement and criticism, and do whatever you can to be able to improve your behavior. I may still have my views and opinions, as many other users have theirs (often in contrast and opposition with mine), but I am open to try to improve myself in order to have a healthy debate, and a healthy discussion. Please let me know your feedback, and I truly hope that this indefinite block can be overturned. If it is, from then on, I promise to find different ways that I could combat my stubbornness and toxic behavior, rather than harass, edit-war or resort to incivility. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. This WP:WALLOFTEXT is well over 1300 words long. It's much, much too long. Yamla (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This 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).

Fdom5997 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I personally feel that this block is not justified (not just for me but for any other overall good-faith editor). For that said, one of the reasons being that I am aware that I was wrong in my obsessive and persistent reverts of changes to articles, edit-wars, hounding and incivility. For that I sincerely apologize and will do as much as I can to work on not persistently reverting other edits (unless they are vandalisms or unsourced info or evidently factually wrong) or engaging in edit-wars and instead use talk pages, provided that I explain myself in a civil manner without any vicious attacks towards other users, and not resort to edit-warring and hounding as well. I have been an active editor on here for 8 years, and despite my bad behavior and quarrels, I deeply feel that overall my edits have been very productive and good-faith and I have worked incredibly hard in order to search for reliable sources from all across the internet and even access and receive sources from beyond and from distant libraries or from authors themselves. I feel that I have made great contributions to all the language pages that I have edited all across the site, especially regarding the phonology sections and I would surely continue to provide productive edits to add to each article-section. For the record, I am a linguistics/anthropology major myself. The main reason why I want to be a part of this project is sincerely because I want to improve the site, and to improve the language pages and information, and make sure that they are properly cited with good sources as well. I am aware that I truly messed up while I was still working on trying to pass consensus regarding my proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages/Linguistics to include *some* allophones in phonological charts across the various language phonology sections on each page. I was very convinced that my proposal was a fair deal, so I was quite a bit impatient, and truly should have waited until everything was settled. But for that, it would be very appreciated if I could still some way get some slack, and have my block shortened. I truly hope that this indefinite block can be overturned, and if it is, from then on, I promise to find different ways that I could combat my stubbornness and toxic behavior, rather than harass, edit-war or resort to incivility, specifically by using talk pages, instead of this bad behavior I did not intend to mentally or verbally harm anyone that was engaged in my quarrel, I was just speaking from an incredibly passionate (but yet rather impatient and stubborn) standpoint. If anyone else could let me know of anything else I could improve on, or even ask any questions, please let me know. Thanks. Fdom5997 (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Looking at the WP:ANI thread, I disagree with you, I think the block is justified. I think you need a break from editing linguistic articles. I suggest re-applying in 6 months time, and even then a topic ban on linguistic articles would probably be needed. PhilKnight (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Fdom5997 (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I've reinstated your first appeal, please note that the template explains you cannot remove declined appeals whilst you block remains in place. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ok got that. Fdom5997 (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #109705 was a word for word copy of the above unblock request, which has already been dealt with. Please don't waste administrators' time in that way. You may find it helpful to read WP:ADMINSHOP. JBW (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@EducatedRedneck, JBW, PhilKnight, Wug·a·po·des I’m sorry, but I do genuinely think this is an incredibly harsh and unjust action against me here. Like I stated before, most of what I have contributed to the Wiki project has been very useful and productive and most of all, in good-faith (including some of my reverts). Don’t believe me? Then take a look at all of my other edits, prior to the changes to the Chungli Ao language at around the past mid-November, where the major conflicts started happening. Yes I do admit that I was impatient and reverted a lot and all of that, but for the record, in order for me to be able to appeal my block, it must be said that there are other sides to who I was arguing with. Which is that I still see the exact same behavior (possibly worse) from Kwamikagami, who had both @Oklopfer’s and another TA's cited edits reverted in the Shawi Arabic page, as well the other cited edit from a TA in the Choni page.

Diffs shown here

Another incident with Kwami happened back in the previous ANI thread before I was blocked in December where I was referred to as a “psychopath”.

Is it me, or does it seem like this is pure ownership and bad-faith behavior coming from Kwami, who is currently doing the same behavior that he accused me of doing, and then further had me blocked for?

I don't know, but something is seriously, genuinely wrong in regards to the behavior on Kwami's end. Perhaps he was responsible for initiating the bad-faith-edit arguments about a month ago, just in order for me to object and try to make my case, only then to have me blocked.

Fdom5997 (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do genuinely think this is an incredibly harsh and unjust action against me here This is a problem. You were blocked for a reason, and if you cannot see or understand how this is an appropriate response, it seems unlikely that you will be able to change the problem behavior. Most of this post sounds like WP:NOTTHEM, which won't help your unblock. Specifically, You are blocked because of what you did, not because of what others did. (emphasis original)

Kwami's actions do not seem like ownership or bad faith from Kwami to me; it seems like upholding community consensus. Note that I don't recall you being accused of bad faith; it's easy to believe that you honestly were doing what you thought was best for the project, just happened to be mistaken in what that was.

Speaking only for myself, I think your unblock would be much more convincing if you identified why you had been uncivil and hounding, and what steps you will or have taken to prevent that in the future. "I was hounding. Now I won't hound." is not terribly convincing, especially when then undermined by "but others behaved badly, too" at the end. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Fdom5997 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The following request was written through the unblock wizard.

Can you explain, in your own words, what you were blocked for?

For obsessive and persistent reverts of changes to articles, edit-wars, hounding and incivility.

If unblocked, what edits would you make and what (if applicable) would you do differently?

I would make much more constructive and productive edits, address myself and my views in a civil manner without edit-warring or hounding, and at least use a talk page instead.

Is there anything else that may be helpful to your unblock request?

Most of what I have contributed to the Wiki project in the last 8 years, has been very useful and productive and most of all, in good-faith (including some of my reverts). Yes I do admit that I messed up, and was impatient and reverted a lot and all of that, but also for the record, in order for me to be able to appeal my block, it must be said that there are other sides to who I was arguing with.

Fdom5997 (talk) 08:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=<small>The following request was written through the [[Wikipedia:Unblock wizard|unblock wizard]].</small><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div>
'''''Can you explain, in your own words, what you were blocked for?'''''<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div>
For obsessive and persistent reverts of changes to articles, edit-wars, hounding and incivility.<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div>
'''''If unblocked, what edits would you make and what (if applicable) would you do differently?'''''<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div>
I would make much more constructive and productive edits, address myself and my views in a civil manner without edit-warring or hounding, and at least use a talk page instead.<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div>
'''''Is there anything else that may be helpful to your unblock request?'''''<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div>
Most of what I have contributed to the Wiki project in the last 8 years, has been very useful and productive and most of all, in good-faith (including some of my reverts). Yes I do admit that I messed up, and was impatient and reverted a lot and all of that, but also for the record, in order for me to be able to appeal my block, it must be said that there are other sides to who I was arguing with.<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div>
 [[User:Fdom5997|Fdom5997]] ([[User talk:Fdom5997#top|talk]]) 08:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=<small>The following request was written through the [[Wikipedia:Unblock wizard|unblock wizard]].</small><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div>
'''''Can you explain, in your own words, what you were blocked for?'''''<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div>
For obsessive and persistent reverts of changes to articles, edit-wars, hounding and incivility.<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div>
'''''If unblocked, what edits would you make and what (if applicable) would you do differently?'''''<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div>
I would make much more constructive and productive edits, address myself and my views in a civil manner without edit-warring or hounding, and at least use a talk page instead.<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div>
'''''Is there anything else that may be helpful to your unblock request?'''''<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div>
Most of what I have contributed to the Wiki project in the last 8 years, has been very useful and productive and most of all, in good-faith (including some of my reverts). Yes I do admit that I messed up, and was impatient and reverted a lot and all of that, but also for the record, in order for me to be able to appeal my block, it must be said that there are other sides to who I was arguing with.<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div>
 [[User:Fdom5997|Fdom5997]] ([[User talk:Fdom5997#top|talk]]) 08:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=<small>The following request was written through the [[Wikipedia:Unblock wizard|unblock wizard]].</small><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div>
'''''Can you explain, in your own words, what you were blocked for?'''''<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div>
For obsessive and persistent reverts of changes to articles, edit-wars, hounding and incivility.<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div>
'''''If unblocked, what edits would you make and what (if applicable) would you do differently?'''''<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div>
I would make much more constructive and productive edits, address myself and my views in a civil manner without edit-warring or hounding, and at least use a talk page instead.<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div>
'''''Is there anything else that may be helpful to your unblock request?'''''<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div>
Most of what I have contributed to the Wiki project in the last 8 years, has been very useful and productive and most of all, in good-faith (including some of my reverts). Yes I do admit that I messed up, and was impatient and reverted a lot and all of that, but also for the record, in order for me to be able to appeal my block, it must be said that there are other sides to who I was arguing with.<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div>
 [[User:Fdom5997|Fdom5997]] ([[User talk:Fdom5997#top|talk]]) 08:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Note to any patrolling admins considering this unblock request: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fdom5997 – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]