User talk:Fmph

If I left you a message: I really don't care where you leave the answer as I'll be watching your talk and here. But please, please, please, please do not place a {{Talkback}} template here.
If you want to leave me a message: I will always answer on your talk page.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

RFA etc.

Thanks for your comment. I've replied on the page. --RA (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot ladder

"A good start - even if i say so myself" - yes, but why on earth create it on a title of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pilot ladder? If you make a mistake like this, please cleanup after yourself by tagging the page {{db-author}}. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Thank you for your honesty.

That is basically how I see it --- except that I have to admit the "Irish view" (Britain and Ireland) --- which let us assume is the 'popular view' rather than the academic or informed view --- is, of course, technically wrong. In that is the problem.

I would also modify your last comment to say "most English" people as the popular English view, reflected since by the Americans, has been aggressively England-centric up until now.

They say Britain when they mean England and England when they mean the UK much to the ire of the Jocks, and in that is seed of the problem.

I think I am coming out of this whole debacle as some kind of Manxist Liberation Front. 99.9% of "Britain and Ireland" actually mean British Isles, even if the book is called "of Great Britain and Ireland" and commonsense has to prevail to recognise that.

I also think that the Irish in this debacle have to become magnanimous enough to allow to the Manxonians and Channel Islanders the same kind of immunity against invisibility that they rightly demand from the English and sort out their confusion of Great Britain with British Isles. --Triton Rocker (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm glad you agree that BI and B+I are synonymous."

A strange response, Fmph, in reflection to what I said above. I am sorry I don't.

Technically speaking, which is the only point of view I am interested in, BI and B+I are in no way synonymous at all. The use of B+I for BI is where the problems start and using +I opens up new doors of discontentment over "which" Ireland.

The few Irish people that find the term "archaic, offensive, political, aggressive, imperialistic" etc are making pronouncements beyond their speciality, presuming they have one, or gerrymandering.

The "British" in British Isles has nothing to do with Westminister, The Troubles, The Crown or anything else. It is a term with ancient roots. The inaccuracy in comprehension is theirs.

We have to de-politicise it. --Triton Rocker (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what use "Britain and Ireland and Man and Guernsey and Sark and Jersey and ..." every time with a citation for each accordingly?

Where do the other island fit into your world view? Why should they be excluded? I am asking honestly.--Triton Rocker (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WT:BISE

This edit and this edit go further than I'd like to see editors ever going. I've left them untouched, but in future I'll remove the off-topic parts and formally warn you. Please restrict WT:BISE comments to content, and don't ascribe intents to editors. TFOWR 11:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Fmph. You have new messages at TFOWR's talk page.
Message added 13:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Quick question about your experience with transclusion... TFOWR 13:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on climate at Belgium

I have logged a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thanks, LemonMonday Talk 18:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

County Kerry

Now I'm the one confused by your edits. By reverting me, you didn't point those links to an article about the sept in question - you pointed them back to the disambig. For instance, take Kennelly. Why do you say that's a sept article? --JaGa^talk 17:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you respond? --JaGa^talk 17:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Granuaile

She was a real person. St Anselm (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If she's a personification, then she belongs on the list. But I can't see anything in the article that suggests that Granuaile is a personification. An example of a personification of Ireland is Kathleen Ni Houlihan. St Anselm (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I've added a reference to the article, and put her back on the list. St Anselm (talk) 07:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Founder Derek Gleeson. Dublin Philharmonic Orchestra

Please stop deleting references to the founder of the Dublin Philharmonic Orchestra Derek Gleeson. Not only is he the founder of the orchestra, he is the legal owner of the trademark and the director of The Dublin Philharmonic Orchestra Association. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.248.94 (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you asked for a citation regarding the "not-for profit" status of the Dublin philharmonic Orchestra Association. I made a link to the only place I know where you can get this information, which is by purchasing a copy of the "ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION" Strange as it may seem, there is no data base of Irish Not For profits in place right now, Although one is due to be rolled out by the end of 2011, [[86.42.248.94 (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)]][reply]

Priory Preparatory School

Referencing on Priory Preparatory School

Thanks for your advice, I've now referenced the material from a local news provider, not sure if that's enough though, Regards Hunted316 (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hickey et al

I think that was a bit rude, actually. A simple check of my contributions would show that I've already disambiguated a dozen of those links, leaving only half a dozen left. St Anselm (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPA

I suspect we have a sock by the way, SPA account with the normal obsessions but no clear evidence yet. Not sure they should be indulged --Snowded ^TALK 21:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology of British Isles

Sorry dude, it was merely a spelling correction. No harm intended. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think?

Hi Fmph, thought you might like to read this. I've had it on my talk page since that last so called "great debate" which is short hand for a no referenced/fact based debate. If you ever come across a source which says the term Ireland is ambiguous could you drop me a link. That is the only rational that is cited and unsupported by any reference. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Domer. Not sure why you think that might be of interest to me? If I ever come across such a source, I will most definitely let you know. Fmph (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IECOLL

Since you and I are the only two to have posted to IECOLL so far today, I was wondering if you would be prepared to swop around your section and mine. I think it would benefit the reader to read your proposal before coming to the proposal, and also that, whether it is favourably received or not, posts to your section are not likely to continue for as long as posts to the poll section. Also, I think that the discussion section of the poll should include discussion of your suggestion, which should therefore logically precede the poll. However, I'll leave it up to you. Scolaire (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting. I think it's much of a muchness really. There is something neat in having the timeline correct within the page order, but I can also see the logic in moving stuff around. Why not post it as a suggestion in the comments section and let others decide on the merits or otherwise. I'm probably not going to be around for much of today in any case. Fmph (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that it's much of a muchness, I'm going to go ahead and do it. If I wait for people to comment on the merits of it it will be already too late. Thanks for your prompt response. Scolaire (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVAS

I think that some of your recent User Talk postings constitute inappropriate canvassing. I recommend that you don't continue with this. Mt king ^(edits) 21:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the notice I got from Fmph about the Ireland naming issue, I am glad he informed me; he did not offer bias one way or another, and I would oppose a censure of him because he was not, in my view, canvassing. -- Evertype·✆ 17:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moira Hoey

Well, the following links clearly show she was better known, at least after her marriage, as Hoey, not Deady: [1], [2]. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well reverting the edit to the Deady page while leaving the Hoey page untouched doesn't accomplish anything, but leave a threadbare Deady page. Why not just reverse the redirect (i.e. Hoey to Deady, instead of vice versa)? Or else create a new page, i.e. Moira Deady Hoey? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland poll

Why have you posted a link to the poll to many user talk pages when most of them, such as myself, have already posted our vote? Would a quick check of the current poll not show who to skip, or for the sake of impartiality did everyone need informed regardless? Whilst it is a nice courtesy, you have to be careful though - whilst you have notified a wide range of editors of different opinions - how exactly have you chosen who to notify?

I noticed Mtking made an issue of it and you responded with this link. I think posting your notification in those places rather than on a users talk page would have been the safest option, least someone actually take you up for it in the belief that you were canvassing.

Just my thoughts. Not accusing you of canvassing as you have notified as i said a wide range of editors, but just stating posting at the WikiProjects may have been a safer option. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Davenport

Is the Mirror a reliable source? I suggest it is preferable to use his actual title. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of them support anything but "self-styled Lord". That is not a good source. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind first checking the talk page before spamming citation tags all over the article? Prioryman (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lennon

I agree the article could be longer, but why should headings take priority when they are unnecessary for navigating the brief text and break the flow? Single paragraph sections are not recommended, see under Paragraphs at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Body sections. Philip Cross (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Please do not remove the {{Aviation lists}} template from aircraft articles. WikiProject Aircraft article format standards call for it to be on all aircraft articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grove Primary School, Frimley

If I may make a suggestion: why not simply blank and redirect obviously non notable primary schools as most editors and admins do anyway according to the rationale I keep putting on all the 100s of sudden AfDs that are turning up this week? It's an uncontroversial operation and a totally accepted procedure even if it's not written in policy. If the creator complains, it can easily be reverted and then sent to AfD. Boldly redirecting would save all the unnecessary bureaucracy, and me and other editors the time having to paste 'Redirect' votes, and another admins having to close all the AfDs. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my tp. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grove Primary School, Frimley

I haven't reverted it, but could you explain what you had in mind by transcluding an editor's user page to an AfD discussion? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbotaging the Climate of Northern Ireland page

What justification do you have for attacking the climate page of a sovereign state by redirecting people who wish to study the climate of Northern Ireland to the climate page of a different sovereign state? The information contained in the Northern Ireland page contains specific data for Northern Ireland that the page for "Ireland" (Republic of) does not contain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seamus48 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you step back to your side of the international border and stop trying to remove the Northern Ireland page. I can understand that you would prefer that Northern Ireland did not exist and that the territory belonged to the Irish Republic but you will not achieve that by forcing your will in this manner. You are only creating resentment by your malicious and divisive act. The data is specific for the country concerned and users may not be interested in an island wide cross-border climate data page, while there is some merit in having such a page in addition. Instead you have repeatedly sabbotaged a perfectly valid Wikipedia article by eliminating it. In any case, the climate is clearly not the same as in the Republic, which has different extreme temperatures. Your action is wholly wrong and dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seamus48 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

You're probably about to edit conflict with me at Rydens Enterprise School, if you haven't already – apologies for that. If you want you can just make your edit(s) and I can fix it later. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I created a dispute resolution involving you on the noticeboard at [3] Seamus48 (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection of Climate of Northern Ireland article without consensus

I created a dispute resolution involving you on the noticeboard at [4] Seamus48 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Climate of Northern Ireland

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Climate of Northern Ireland, Climate of northern ireland". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seamus48 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Derby Schools Template

Hiya undone the edit to the Derby Schools template :) Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomsharlot (talk • contribs) 22:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guernsey F.C.

No problem with using Berwick Rangers as a precedent (although the category page Category:Football clubs in England could probably benefit from more explanatory text), but what to do about the clubs in Category:Welsh football clubs in English leagues? Maybe add the latter category as a member of the former? Or add the clubs individually? What do you reckon? Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Ellis School

I am troubled by your removal of my addition of the old School Song within the entry for William Ellis School.

This cannot be uncyclopaedic matter; there is an entire Wikipedia entry on School Songs, and many are incorporated within their own school's entries. It is important to record the song as part of the school's history, and it is indicative of a particular attitude at the time. ExLibre (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for referring me to WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI of which I was unaware. If you feel it appropriate, you may wish to perform a similar excision upon Addey and Stanhope School, Bedford School, Oundle School, Stamford School, and William Hulme's Grammar School; these are from the England section of School Songs, although there may be others.ExLibre (talk) 10:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Newtown, Reading, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kennet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despute resolution notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "User:Danjel and school AfDs". Thank you. --Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Ireland_category_norms

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Ireland_category_norms. KarlB (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wot?

[5]? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woodeligh School

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.246.90.36 (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are systemically trying to delete any citations which are gaining consensus for notability on the AfD page, thereby subverting that discussion. Furthermore you are tag team edit warring and vandalizing the page with User:salimfadhley. Your intentions are clearly intent on deleting the page at all costs and your edit history demonstrates that. The matter has been reported. 213.246.90.36 (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire

Just a heads up that you might want to be careful of your reverts on Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire. Whether you believe your edits are right or wrong, it looks like you are involved in edit warring. WP:3RR would be worth a read. One particular issue is here [6] where you called the IP's edits vandalism. Vandalism is very narrowly defined here, per WP:VANDALISM and accusing someone of it when it doesn't fit that description may be seen as a personal attack. I know there has been a heated AFD, and DGG wisely shut it down to let things cool down. I'm not taking a stand on the AFD or the content, but edit warring is clearly against policy and can get you blocked. You aren't the only one I'm leaving this message for, by the way, and I just don't want to see you blocked for this. The article will still be there tomorrow, and next week, maybe everyone should take a break. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 21:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your edits are in good faith, but I'd concur with Denis Brown. Please join us on the Talk page rather than directly editing the article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge tags

I note that you have been restoring lots of merge tags which I have removed from school articles that are to my mind inappropriate for merging. The procedures for tagging articles to be merged are outlined here Wikipedia:Merging. If you tag an article the correct procedure is to initiate a discussion on the talk page to indicate why you think the article should be merged. Please note also, as has been discussed elsewhere, there is no consensus that articles for prep schools and primary schools should be merged or deleted. Each article has to be considered on its own merit. Could I also suggest you actually read the articles before tagging them and re-adding merge tags. You seem to be automatically tagging primary schools and prep schools regardless of content. How can you possibly think this article for Sir John Moore Church of England Primary School should be merged? 17:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahliarose (talk • contribs)

As the discussion started here it would be best to keep the discussion in one place so I am replying here rather than on my own talk page. The AfD guidelines do not provide any guidance on the use of merge tags. While few primary schools merit standalone articles there are some exceptions so each article has to be considered on its own merit. English prep schools are very different from primary schools and US elementary schools. They are not covered by any of the notability guidelines. They tend to be in historic buildings, and have lots of notable alumni. There are few that have been deleted. If you are proposing to merge a lengthy articles for historic schools common courtesy would dictate that you should discuss the matter on the talk page. Dahliarose (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Driveby tagging of articles, without actually providing a rationale on the talk page is disruptive in that it does not allow those who oppose your views to actually argue against a position. Please stop. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit wars on several school related articles. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Requested move for Ireland

(Discuss) Should Republic of Ireland be moved to Ireland? Kauffner (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glade Primary School, Redbridge listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Glade Primary School, Redbridge. Since you had some involvement with the Glade Primary School, Redbridge redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. RolandR (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators and help needed

Hi, if you are active on Wikipedia and are still interested in helping out with urgent tasks on our large Schools Project, please let us know here. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sent to project members 13:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC). You can opt of messages here.

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Comprehensive schools by country

A tag has been placed on Category:Comprehensive schools by country indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jim Sugar

The article Jim Sugar has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability. Orphaned for a decade.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PepperBeast (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]