User talk:Fishiehelper2

Welcome!

Hello, Fishiehelper2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of the United Kingdom

I understand the idea that only the actual state founding should be listed in the formation section of the infobox of the United Kingdom article and nothing else, however the infobox also seems to give historical background to the state by listing important events. For if it were just to list the state's founding, it would not even list the Acts of Union 1707 because that was the founding of the Kingdom of Great Britain, the current state was founded in the Acts of Union 1801 (and its name changed in 1927 to reflect its reduced territory). Listing the Anglo-Irish Treaty also seems out of place if the infobox is only intended to list the founding of the state and no background, as the Irish cessation did not create two new states, it created one new one but left the old one of 1801 unchanged (though five years later it changed its name to reflect its reduced territory). So maybe for consistency only the Acts of Union 1801 should be listed in the United Kingdom infobox and the period 1707 to 1801 should be left to the dedicated Kingdom of Great Britain article? I think at the very least my note that the date of formation was 1 January 1801 should be left, otherwise it is left unclear to the reader whether the actual modern state was found in 1707, 1801 or 1922.--Supertask (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever people believe of the founding of Britain as a culture, it is engrained in the Acts or Union 1801 law that 1801 started a new state and dissolved the old ones, this is acknowledged in the Kingdom of Great Britain article "The Kingdom of Great Britain, also known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain, was a state in northwest Europe, in existence from 1707 to 1801.". If you take the alternate name of the Kingdom of Great Britain, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, then of course there was an entity with the words 'United Kingdom' in its name but the Acts of Union 1801 dissolved its government and created a new one of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. So by your definition of the state founding date only, still the Acts of Union 1707 is invalid, furthermore, having the Anglo-Irish treaty in the infobox still does not fit with your idea that only the state founding date should be in the infobox. I think it is important that if we document two of the three major unions, we should document the first one (or be consistent and only document the one relevant to the current state, for example, the article on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland does not list the Acts of Union 1707 in the infobox).--Supertask (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ferryden

A tag has been placed on Ferryden, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --stephenw32768^<user page><talk> 23:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Unionism in Scotland. Thank you. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on List of Wales-related topics, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Icestorm815 (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. It appears that someone has started off and helped you out. Maybe next time you should create and article that already has some links to it, so that way it won't get posted for a speedy deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me! Happy holidays! Icestorm815 (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidation of articles

Hi. You've made some useful edits to articles on UK local government recently. I'm looking at the articles listed in List of articles about local government in the United Kingdom. Some are very short or similar and I wonder if there are any you feel should be combined or amended in some way? (comments to: Talk:List of articles about local government in the United Kingdom). MRSC • Talk 11:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with your Berwick-upon-Tweed edit

The problem with your edit to BoT is that, for whatever reason (and I assume it is a good reason), the article for Charles I is called Charles I of England. So your change now links to a disambiguation page for all the Charles I that ever existed ... meaning that you've degraded the quality of the article. You might have achieved the effect you were after with the piped link: Charles I (i.e. [[Charles I of England|Charles I]]).

England (including Wales) and Scotland had been in personal union since the Union of the Crowns in 1603. They agreed to a political union in the form of a unified Kingdom of Great Britain under the Acts of Union 1707, and it was only from that point that the King was styled as of the Great Britain (and only after the Act of Union 1800, that the style was King of the United Kingdom). So Charles I was Charles I of England, also Charles I of Scotland, and had various other names besides, I do not doubt. Wikipedia does not have sufficient freedom to use all of his titles as the article title, and has determined to file him under England.

The English rule to which the section title alludes is rule from Westminster rather than from the Parliament of Scotland, fwiw.

I'll go away and pipe the link now. Probably the best solution. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important to know

Hi Fishiehelper2, I hope you read my comment at Talk: Post-abortion syndrome. I just thought it would be important to remind you especially since you seem like a new editor. You said that if something is true, then it shouldn't need any sources to back up the claim. I just thought it would be a friendly reminder to tell you that it is the other way around. In fact, WP:V says that when something has no source, then it can be deleted without warning. (Of course, it can also be discussed on the talk page.) This means that in the future, anything you see that is tagged with citation needed can be deleted for WP:V. I don't know if this is overkill, but I thought this would be helpful for you in the future if you are going to edit Wikipedia in the future. Cheers! миражinred (speak, my child...) 00:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can add citation needed templates like this {{citation needed}}. However, I usually delete things that are tagged with those templates, especially if they are used on libelous facts on biography articles. миражinred (speak, my child...) 20:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem =) миражinred (speak, my child...) 00:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates

Hello. I like your work on the Teacher article. May I suggest that you avail yourself of the citation templates to make standardized citations? Compare citations 13 & 14 in the Teacher article to the rest and I think you'll see what I mean. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 13:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting in touch! I am quite new to all this and I'm trying to learn as I go along - often by checking what has been done and copying methods. Using standardized citations looks quite daunting!!! By the way, I like your user page - I spent two minutes looking over it and I think I know you already! Cheers, and thanks. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment on my user page! I'm always happy to help anyone out in any way that I can, feel free to ask anytime. Citation templates are actually quite easy to use, you just fill in the parts you are able to and erase the rest. I suppose the link to the overview page of all the templates can be confusing- I recommend going to each template's own page to see about usage. The templates I use the most are {{cite web}} and {{cite news}}. I just copy the format given on each of those pages into a text file I keep open on my desktop, fill in the form, then paste it into an article in between a set of <ref></ref> tags. Easy as pie (or π, whatever your preference).

I note above that you've occasionally had your new articles deleted. That can be very frustrating especially if you're still working on them. I would suggest that you use subpages of your user page as work-pages to develop articles. For example, User:Fishiehelper2/Some article leads to a subpage of your user page where you can work on an article to your heart's content with it being very unlikely that it would be deleted. When the article is ready for "prime time", you can use the move function to place it into the main namespace with its revision history intact. Subpages can also be used to archive your talk page when it gets too long and even to create a personal sandbox where you can do editing experiments.

I hope my ideas help you out a bit. Looking at how others have done things is a great way to learn (I do it myself often) but also feel free to ask other editors any questions you may have too. A good resource for that is the New contributors' help page. Thanks for your excellent contributions to the encyclopedia and Happy editing! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 17:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all that. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff

The Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) has the role of providing advice to NHS Boards and their Area Drug and Therapeutics Committees (ADTCs) about all newly licensed medicines. [1] It seeks to supply advice within 12 weeks of a new medicine being licenced to ensure that patients would could benefit can get access to the medinine as quickly as possible. The speed of the process has allowed the SMC to be compared favourably against the performance of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) which performs a similar role for the NHS in England and Wales.[2] On one occasion, NICE was accused of incompetence by the Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) for delaying issuing advice for England and Wales about a drug that had already been approved for use in Scotland by the SMC. [3]

references

1. Scottish Medicines Consortium Home Page
2. Paper by Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh
3. http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/publicwebsite/public_pr080807.hcsp RNIB accuses NICE of incompetence]

See also

• NHS Scotland

New Message

Hey Mr.West As soon as my little brother told me that you had a wikipedia i though i should join and talk to you.After i passed my higher Modern i went to university and did my teaching course i am now a teacher (modern Studies) on my course. I am based in Aberdeen just now only for a year. I just had to tell you that if i never met you i dont think i would be a teacher your a great inspiration to me. My brother told me that your in for an operation i hope you get out okay Oh! and thanks Mr.West:)

P.S its about time that your off that waiting list hehe:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.69.60.254 (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Hi Fishiehelper2,

5th Year Was Here

- good to hear from you!! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits{{{ Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you. }#if:Abortion|, as you are doing in Abortion}}. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --> --> KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prison population of England and Wales

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Prison population of England and Wales, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: United Kingdom prison population. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irish people

Hello. I was wondering, because there is no Northern Irish people article, do you think we should add Irish people to the British people page like the others here?

I hadn't thought about it until your message - now that I have thought about it, I suppose Northern Irish people are either 'British' or 'Irish'. I suppose it depends on whether we view 'British' as being from Britain or from the British Isles. Cheers

Violent crime in the US

Actually, my cite request was not for firearm homicide. Rather, it was for the claim that:

Among developed nations, the United States has above-average levels of violent crime

Firearm-related crime is only about 10-20% of all violent crime. My cite request is for the claim that the US has a higher level of violent crime in general, compared to the rest of the developed world. I have read research that this is not the case. kevinp2 (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NHS

The NHS is the National Health Service of the United Kingdom. It was invented by the government of the United Kingdom. The UK government retains substantial control over the entireity of the service. It is only since devolution (c.1997) that the system has fragmented. I think it is unwise to claim that it is only the health system in England. Feel free to rename the article "Healthcare in England" if you want to be more specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odyssey 500 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are returning to read my reply, here it is! The NHS in England and Wales was set up by separate legislation from the NHS in Scotland, though both systems took effect on the same date in 1948. The Welsh system was separated from the English system prior to political devolution. Therefore devolution may be accelerating the creation of differences, but the systems were never one system. Hope this is helpful. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland

Hello Fishiehelper2. Thank you, for not 'roughing' me up on the 'map' & consistancy issues. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LE in the UK

I'm sorry about that I didnt realise I thought it was county forces it was trying to get across, but thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK

Hello there Fishiehelper2!

I notice you've made alot of great changes to the United Kingdom article. However, I think the next step would be to cite some sources for the additions/changes to ensure the text stays stable. Do you think you'd be able to do this? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted in Arbitration Request

FYI, in my response to MastCell's Arbitration Request you are quoted. I hope you will agree that I did not quote you out of context. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Strider12

Revert

Could you please explain why you reverted this [1] Why is the first ever Labour government not important enough to be included in this section? Jack forbes (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No bother, cheers! Jack forbes (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems someone agreed with you and reverted my revert! As you say, not too big a deal, so I'll leave as is. Jack forbes (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Healthcare in the United Kingdom

Just a few words to thank you for taking on board what I said before about the original intent this article and the need to ensure that it did not linger too much on the variations amongst the various systems. I think the article reads much better now. --Tom (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Report

Hello there, Thought I'd let you know that Fonez4mii has been accused of sockpupperty Here. Jack forbes (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I would like to know if Fonez4mii is allowed to make a comment at the top of the page next to the suspected sockpuupet account. Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "comment" I have put simply explains whether the suspected sockpuppets have been addmited or confirmed, as a quick summary of what has happend. Cheers. Fone4Me 21:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constituent country

There has been a long centralized discussion at Talk:United Kingdom, in which it was decided with 83.33% consensus that constituent country would be used to describe England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. However, users at Scotland are saying that they will not accept a consensus made on another page, so I would like to inform you that there is now a similar vote on the Scotland talk page. Cheers --fone4me 20:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually quite like this. I don't know if it's been considered before. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say that I truly admire the way you have been able to go on editing pages and improving them while all these debates swill around. I will have to find out how to award barnstars. --Snowded (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etymological list of counties of the United Kingdom

Can you please provide a reference to your change to the meaning of the name Aberdeen? My reference from when I created the article is provided at the bottom of the article, and that includes for the name Aberdeen. -- role^player 21:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to let you know, the Oxford dictionary reference provides the first record of Aberdeen as being called Aberdon in 1187. -- role^player 22:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is good, but it makes a common mistake in etymology: it doesn't consider what the place used to be called, just what it is called today. Finding another early reference to the city name that confirms Aberdon or suggests Aberdeen is the key to this. -- role^player 09:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen that Aberdeen and Etymology of Aberdeen both state that the name was originally Aberdon. -- role^player 09:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the links I provided above, which give a much more detailed explanation of any that I could, and if you still have queries I would suggest bringing them up at Talk:Etymology of Aberdeen. Aberdeen also provides Richard Stephen Charnock. Local Etymology: A Derivative Dictionary of Geographical Names. Houlston and Wright. as a reference for Aberdon, which is one that I don't have access to. -- role^player 20:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Would you like me to enable the Wikipedia:Rollback feature on your account? Have a read at the page and if it seems to be of any use, just leave me a note. Either here or on my talk page is fine. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be enabled now. Any questions, let me know. Cheers! Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom

Good change on parliament - thanks --Snowded TALK 20:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure on London? I thought it had additional powers, but the Assembly web site is no help. Agree on co-operation by the way. Today has been a pleasant change from edit wars, just an iterative process of improvement between several editors. --Snowded TALK 20:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke too soon --Snowded TALK 21:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask...

I've seen an awful lot of overlap between you and a series of ip addresses that begin "86.157", and although you're a hardworking respectable editor, I have had my suspicions for a while now. The correlation between you and these ips is compelling by way of the topics editted, the times when editting is taking place and the style of language used in the articles and edit summaries.

Just to get things out in the open, are you editting with ip addresses as well as your registered account? I have to ask because I believe some of these ips are damaging Wikipedia and if I was to block them and not be aware of a connection, you could also be blocked indirectly. I'm sure you can see my dillema here. I won't be offended if this has been going on, but now's the time for this to be brought out in the open. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. My concern is based around the fact that this 86.157/86.162 editor (he has no static ip address) seems to edit when you do not, and on topics that occupy very simillar spaces that you edit. For example, Special:Contributions/86.157.202.178 highlights areas where 86 will make a change, followed shortly (usually within 30 mins) by yourself example, example, example, example, example, example, example. These are just some comparisons from a cursory search I've just done.

I can appreciate that it isn't nice to be accused of WP:SOCK or even WP:GAME, but this is pretty open and shut correlation. I think even you would be hard-pressed to deny that the timing and articles are not overwhelmingly simillar.

My concern now is that I've just challenged one ip. Now it's the second time I've challenged such an ip, and its regarding a distinctive editting style where UK topics are essencially turned into disambiguation pages, with rather odd lists in the lead section. Of course, you would be respectable enough to know that lists in lead sections are prohibited by WP:MOS by way of WP:LIST and WP:LEAD?

Some of these UK topics could be great. But currently, they're being slowly squeezed into a disambiguation for the home nations, and how different they are from one another. I think that's an unacceptble career for an ip to take on WP.

What's worrying is that some of these ips have been in conversation with you in some talk pages, in one case the ip suggesting we move British people to British peoples and you making the move (see the move log). There's also a connection with Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire which is irregular.

This could all be a terrible co-incidence, but look at this evidence yourself objectively and tell me I shouldn't be concerned (!). Yes sometimes we get logged out, and forget to sign in, but some of these edits look like tag-teaming. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave this with me! I think you may be right regarding the ip. I'm glad I asked now as I don't believe you're connected and I apologise. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange indeed, and I feel guilty for asking now. The connection was so profound that I had to. I did think it would be odd that you were editting as an ip, then as your ID - it didn't ring right in my heart but my head kept saying this is the same person! Again, I apologise and I'll watch out for the ip. Happy editting... I think I need a wikibreak... :) --Jza84 |  Talk  00:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

modern studies

Would you consider the scottish subject of modern studies to be equivalent to politics or media studies or general studies as England does not employ the qualification? What is it closer to? 78.148.131.90 (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I confess I don't know enough about what the politics and general studies courses in England cover, so I would only be guessing if I gave an opinion. Having said that, information about the all the courses should be available on-line so it should not be too difficult to find out. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Most visited articles

I'll try and track it down. Last time I saw the stats (about 6 weeks ago) I believe it was third. It's certain to still be in the top ten, as I'm sure you can imagine. Leave it with me and I'll get back to you. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I finally came across a statistics page that resembles something like what I've seen in the past. According to this, the UK article is the 51st most visited Wikipedia page, ever. That list includes some pages that are not articles, but pages for navigation, like the main page, the search page, the portal contents page and so on, so the UK is probably in the top 25 most visited articles, which is pretty impressive. Interestingly enough, London is ahead of it, slightly closer to the top, and England is some way behind in the 100s, and Scotland back to the 300s. Typically, the UK page gets about 20k visitors a day! Hope that helps. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I found out, just now, that the UK is the 2nd most linked article on WP. See Wikipedia:Most_referenced_articles. This is actually the list I was thinking about when I said it was in the top 5 most visited, but must've got confused. It's still very interesting, and is also the original reason I restored a semi protection (such articles are "likely to be read often and therefore should be of the highest quality").

We really ought to try to get the UK article upto FA sometime. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  22:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'll be struggling to get its GA status back from what I've seen, never mind FA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using citation templates

Hi. I noticed that you're not currently using citation templates when adding references to articles such as United Kingdom. Did you know that there is a tool that makes using these very simple? To add it, all you need to do is go to your Wikipedia preferences, click on the gadgets tab and tick the box next to refTools. This then adds the tool to the list of buttons above the editing window when you're editing an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of the National Health Service (England)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of History of the National Health Service (England), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: History of the National Health Service. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UN sources

Hello Fishiehelper. I see you found a UN source for Scotland and N.Ireland being countries. I also noticed this source. Although its not from a UN website it must have be taken from one of their sites. Cheers. Titch Tucker (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! I really should pay more attention. Titch Tucker (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, What is good: Scotland is defined as a country. What isn't: England & Wales is defined as a country. It obviously relates to jurisdictions, but it is progress of sorts. Two steps forward, one/(two) step/(s) back. I fear it's too late to save the country articles now anyway. Perhaps in a few months when the trolls/sock puppets have been exposed? We live in hope. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly fit the criteria of a country with this source and others to back it up. My discussions have centered around the home countries, as I know more on this subject, but any land in the world which has plentiful verifiable sources to back their country claims should be included. Whether it is pointed out that these countries are part of a larger sovereign country is perhaps not my first choice, but nevertheless, either way they should be included. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Shall we vote on it? Daicaregos (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see why not. Titch Tucker (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of national anthems

Ya just ruined my appetite, Fishiehelper2. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The resolution said Quebecois (i.e Quebecers), not Quebec itself. If ya only knew, the can of worms you've opened. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catalonia is a nation as well

http://www.gencat.net/generalitat/eng/estatut/preambul.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.206.234 (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli history

Hi, I undid your changes because I think it is important to retain the distinction between the pre-arab and the Post-Arab periods, especially for Moslem readers. However your changes struck me as constructive and I tried to correct the text accordingly where it was relevant. I haven't quite finished yet but if you have any comments I would prefer you wrote them down on the comment page first.

Have a good weekend.

Jonathan Telaviv1 (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary McAleese

I've made a suggestion, at that article. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Law enforcement in the United Kingdom

No-one has blamed the death of Tomlinson on kettling, and the source doesn't support that claim either, which leaves very little to be written about. ninety:one 22:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no kettling in relation to his death, so I removed that claim, but I have left the section so as to allow for a source to back up criticism of other police tactics. If there are any. ninety:one 22:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Military history of the peoples of the British Islands

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Military history of the peoples of the British Islands. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military history of the peoples of the British Islands. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Christianophobia in Scotland

An article that you have been involved in editing, Christianophobia in Scotland, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christianophobia in. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in the United Kingdom

I have been watching your interference for sometime. Under the guise of disambiguation you have deleted valuable information. It was a well presented readable article without any bias. I do not know your background. Please do not behave like a self appointed scholar of Hinduism in the UK because you are not one. Leave it to the experts to do the job. You keep deleting information for the sake of it. Please note Wikipedia is Encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.65.149 (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there whoever you are. My last edit was 12th April which I explained at the time as "removing opinion (unless someone can cite evidence that "it attracts more, younger members". That is not 'deleting information for the sake of it'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top Uk singers or groups.

Status Quo? NOooooo! ;) Jack forbes (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Status Quo have been reinserted into the text. You were quite right, they do belong there. :) Jack forbes (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parc Cwm long cairn

Hi Fishiehelper2, I'm thinking of having a crack at WP:FAC for Parc Cwm long cairn. If you have the time, would you mind taking a look? I would welcome some feedback before requesting a full peer review (and being officially humiliated). By the by, is "at an elevation of about 50 feet (15 m) above sea level" a tautology? If so, would you delete 'elevation' or 'above sea level'? Please let me know if you'd rather not, or don't have the time. I won't be offended. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daicaregos. I'm flattered to be asked to take a look, though the article is about something I have absolutely no knowledge! On first reading, it seems a well written article, with appropriate references to support the claims. The only comment I have is about expressing dates in terms of 'BP (Before Present)' rather than in terms of BC or even BCE - I confess I have never seen 'BP' before! As for the possible tautology, I'm not convinced it is - It appears, to me, that it reads well enough as it is. I would certainly encourage you to have a crack. Hope that's of some use! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the acid test for an article is if it were on a subject about which one knows nothing, one finds it interesting and leaves better informed. I hope that was the case. I asked for your input as I have always found your grammar and prose to be of the highest quality. If you saw anything you feel could be improved, please do so. I'm sure it needs more work before taking the next step. Anyway, many thanks for your time. Daicaregos (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland is NOT generally referred to as the NHS

I have reverted your changes to my edit at National Health Service becuase I can find no evidence that in Northern Ireland that the health care services are commonly referred to as the NHS. Yes, the some BBC reports and I am sure others will occasionally use the term NHS as shorthand for Health and Social Care Northern Ireland, but these are EXCEPTIONS. They are not the rule. If you go to government web sites there you will not find it referred to as NHS. See also http://www.centralservicesagency.n-i.nhs.uk/files/healthandsocialcareni/file/HSC%20Booklet%205209.pdf which never uses the term NHS or National Health Service.

I am open to persuasion otherwise but you will need to have much more substantial evidence than a BBC report to back your claim. I am going to raise a question on this subject at Talk;Northern Ireland and I trust that you will wait to see what the outcome of that reveals before reverting it again.--Hauskalainen (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland

Hello, Fishiehelper2. You have new messages at Rannpháirtí anaithnid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

x2 --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC) x3 --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland

I have reinstated that. It is clearly relevant to the article and IMO the lead. It's in the Welsh article in the same place, so if you think it's incorrect in Scotland move it from Wales too. I would prefer that you discussed this on the talk page rather than removing content you don't like. regards. Leaky Caldron 22:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wales - Lead - 2nd sentence. It clearly belongs in your article. I think removing fair content is inappropriate as you and a subsequent editor (with a very pointy edit summary) have done. If you are the experts in the article feel free to put it where you want. It has to be relevant to the politics of your country and the info. box does not accomodate it. Leaky Caldron 23:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman Catholic Dioceses in the UK

That's precisely what it's supposed to be, a list. I like what you've added with the writeup, but it's supposed to be a list, so that people can go to the actual articles. Benkenobi18 (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix up your writeup then. I apologise for mangling it. I like what you've added as the header but just keep the list is all. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Anti-Christian sentiment in the United Kingdom

I have nominated Anti-Christian sentiment in the United Kingdom, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Christian sentiment in the United Kingdom. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bun-sgoil Shlèite‎

The article Bun-sgoil Shlèite‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Articles for deletion nomination of Bun-sgoil Shlèite‎

I have nominated Bun-sgoil Shlèite‎, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bun-sgoil Shlèite‎. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of United Kingdom national football team

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:United Kingdom national football team/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toll roads in the United Kingdom

I completely fail to understand your having destroyed the previous article with this title. The main variety of turnpike roads in Britain were turnpike trusts, both in England and Wales. The article that you have now moved to England should also cover Wales, but there was a difference in the detailed history in that county highways boards (possibly not quite the right term) were set up after the Rebecca riots. I do not think there have been many in Northern Ireland since 1922 (or Republic of Ireland), so that any Irish article will be much better dealt with as a whole Ireland article. I think the reason that little is said about Scotland is that there never have been made toll roads there (except the Skye Bridge). I would not oppose moving the English article to Toll roads in Great Britain. Please reply on my talk page: I would like to hear your view before nominating the above for AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should have objected when the move was done. What I am looking for is an overview article covering UK (or GB). I have never heard of toll roads in Wales before 1535. The largest body of material is located at Turnpike trusts. I did substantial editing on this and what is now the England article a couple of years ago, so that we have a tree - Toll roads then toll roads in UK, then turnpike trusts. On looking at the Scottish article, I found that there was an external link, indicating that there had been turnpike trusts in Scotland, which I had not realised. As Scottish law and English law have always been different, there may well be merit in having a separate article on the detail for Scotland, but I would suggest that this should be a subsidiary one to the UK (now England) article. You will see that I have put a requested move on the English article. Perhaps we should continue the discussion there. The external link on the Scotland page unfortunately lacks detail on the turnpike era in Scotland; its reference to parish labour sounds too like the 16th century English Act for me to be convinced it is right, but it may be. I would like to see how the Scottish article develops before making a final judgment. I also suspect that one article on the whole of Ireland will be better than with the post-1922 Northern Ireland/Republic split, as I would guess that any tolls there belong to the turnpike era. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Vexatious Chrisieboy

I abandoned my former pleasurable pursuit in Wikipedia, having been hounded out by the vexatious 'Chrisieboy'. The omnipresent 'Chrisieboy' lurks in all of Wikipedia's dark crevices, like a voyeuristic predator, waiting to pounce. 'Chrisieboy' has a predilection for feeding his insatiable megalomania by reverting the good faith edits of other Wikipedians. Many of us are simply eager and enthusiastic amateurs, not drilled in all of Wikipedia's administrative nuances. 'Chrisieboy' does not even use readily understood language, preferring the prepubescent playground language of Wikipedia, which substitutes perfectly unequivocal terminology with puerile esoteric terms, understood only by those whose rather sad lives revolve only around eating, defecating and Wikepedia. It could have been such good educational fun, with the added benefit of well researched and occasional edits. I thought I was a lone 'reprobate', until I revisited Chrisieboy's talk page one year on. It is now clear that Chrisieboy brings a storm to every port he visits. I will now sign off from Wikipedia for good. Unlike the cyber marauding 'Chrisieboy', I have a very full life without Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thechrisieboyvexmonitor (talk • contribs) 22:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom: History

As you recently edited this, you might be interested in this thread: Talk:United Kingdom#History section - proposal for changes DeCausa (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduism in England
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduism in Scotland

--Mais oui! (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-paste move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Glasgow Gaelic School a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Jafeluv (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq invasion at United States

I note your Edit summary of "removed 'preemptively' - it was not as though Iraq were preparing to launch an attack!"

In fact, the claim from George W Bush that Iraq had WMDs and WAS planning to attack other nations was part of the justification for the invasion. I agree with you that they weren't, but is that not at least slightly a retrospective view? HiLo48 (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be nice to find words that said the invaders claimed it was pre-emptive, but it really wasn't. HiLo48 (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in the United Kingdom

Hi. Just thought I would let you know that I am just doing a bit of a clean-up and rearrangement of this page, as flagged on the talkpage. I hope to post soon, but I am a bit worried that I might lose some of your fixes and corrections, or that they may be wasted as a lot of the repetitious text is going, since I am working from what is now an older version. Just to let you know it might be a good idea to hang fire on this one for a couple of days and then lend your skills to fixing what will be, I am afraid, still a pretty problematic article. All the best.--SabreBD (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem

Hello. The language on your entry about the homes in East Jerusalem to Portal:Current events is inappropriate. Whether East Jerusalem is occupied or a part of Israel is hotly disputed. Please remove the "occupied" from that section. Thank you.--RM (Be my friend) 17:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I asked was that you remove the word "occupied". I understand that most sources refer to East Jerusalem differently from Jerusalem, and BBC is a relatively reliable organization, so we can use that source. Just keep in mind that on such a hotly debated and controversial topic, it is best not to use words such as "occupied" on an encyclopedia that is supposed to be completely neutral, and not take sides with certain opinions (even if the opinion is held by the majority of the world).--RM (Be my friend) 17:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be biased. Removing "occupied" is not biased towards either side. To simply put "East Jerusalem" is quite enough, as it is universally understood that both sides claim it, and that the legality of Israel's annexation is disputed. To put "occupied" implies that the Palestinian side is correct in their assertions.--RM (Be my friend) 18:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "occupied" nor "annexed". "East Jerusalem" is just fine, as Israel's annexation and the world's non-recognition is generally understood.--RM (Be my friend) 19:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, try putting something like "disputed East Jerusalem".--RM (Be my friend) 20:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next UK general election

Afternoon

There is no consensus amongst regular editors for the article title to be changed, or the article to be moved. I agree that other assemblies may be treated different here, but how one article is named is not necessarily how others must also be treated. Given that no Scottish Parliament election has ever been early, it makes sense to assume the date for the next one won't change. However there is less certainty about the date of the next Westminster election. It would run counter to our policy on "crystal balling" to assume 2015 would be the definite date. I would either a) open this discussion to a wider audience and find consensus, or b) just wait until we are closer to having guaranteed assurance that the polling date has been decided. doktorb _words^deeds 16:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Des McLean

The article Des McLean has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

England years

They initially seem like a fork of United Kingdom years. But I guess given that the other sub entities have their own pages with unique content. So long as they are expanded with details beyond what there is initially otherwise they are quite redundant.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the Wales pages and the different topics like music releases etc persuaded me they are worth having, so long as they end up more detailed than the UK general pages. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Years in England

Hello Fishiehelper2. I see you have created a few articles like 2000 in England - I agree that this is needed. I think it is wrong that articles like 2000 in the United Kingdom are almost all about England which reinforces the idea that England and the UK are the same thing. I would like to see England getting more appropriate recognition and this would be helped if the 'year in the United Kingdom' articles only dealt with genuinely UK news issues, and English items were in 'year in England' articles. I plan to work on this project as I get time (which is only now and then) but I'd be grateful if you felt you could also contribute to this as you appear to have done already. Kindest regards. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Fishiehelper2! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Your lack of good faith

I wish you can show more good faith to editors who are experts on a certain subject. Myeslf and Slaversten have made hundreds of edits to the EDL article and have collaborrated for a long time together. You come along and disregard our voice which i feel like that is disrespectful and insulting. An editor who has been here for as long as yourself should know better. You also waste a lot of time and effort which could be spent oin better ways. You also disregard the opinions of the established editor Sean Hoyland who also agrees on lack of notability. You barely reply to any issues i raise, and you come to a subject you have barely ever edited and think you know better than people who have edited there for years. Next time please respect WP:consensus and WP:UNDUE. I am actuyally really angry right now at your time wasting. I could have reported you to a noticeboard but will communicate on a one-to-one level first. Pass a Method talk 18:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the reply. How about a compromise and we copy-paste and merge the protests in Scottish Defence League to EDL demonstrations? It already contains non-English demonstrations such as Edinburgh and Amsterdam. Pass a Method talk 20:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I rcommend you go to the Redirect SDL subsection and give your proposa there since most editors want to redirect the article. Pass a Method talk 20:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

Your recent editing history at Scottish Defence League shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SDL

Are you satisfied with the SDL link? here. ? I hav added the individual protests to this page Pass a Method talk 20:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, i added the SDL demonstrations to the EDL demonstrations article, to merge them together. Pass a Method talk 00:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited 1990 in England, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Carr (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) 10:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited 1982 in Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Social Democratic Party (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, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow Gaelic School

Hello. I noticed that a while back you moved the page Glasgow Gaelic School back to Sgoil Ghàidhlig Ghlaschu. However, according to naming conventions it should be located at the English title. Contrary to the summary you gave (that it is a mere translation), Glasgow Gaelic School is the official name used in English documents and media. I have requested a technical move to move it back to the English name for this reason. Caledones ^talk softly, please 22:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers FC

can you take your chnges to talk so it clear people are agreeing on teh changes, i dnt have anything against your changes but the page hopefully will be fulyl proctected soon and all changes need discussed there then, just dnt want to have to rever tany your edits if someone else makes changes that aint been talked aboutAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As i said i dnt have objection to your changes as they are only making it a bit more up to date , only suggesting talk so that it can been seen by a admin it is a cones-us to change it

Rangers

Rangers are not in liquidation, because a liquidator has not been appointed by court order. The administrator (Duff & Phelps) said last week that they will still be in place for the next several weeks. The failure of the CVA proposal last week means Rangers FC plc will be liquidated, but it is not yet in liquidation. James Morrison (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The liqudater are there and starting teh job, but the full transfer ot the liqudater siwll takea good few weeks but not here no liqudated yetAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers FC Dispute

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

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 "Rangers FC club dead or not". Thank you. --Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers

Please take your argument over this to the talk page rather than arguing via edit summaries. Britmax (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I'm pointing out the risk of 3RR to both of you here, whatever the argument is actually about. Britmax (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers F.C. Plc is being liquidated

I am afraid we will have to disagree; the club is not tied to the company. The company is a body corporate and the club is a less tangible (if that were possible) entity, involving history and symbolism. Conflicting sources indicate different view points based upon, largely, the authors interpretation of the situation. See [2] which clear states; The history of the club remains with the club, so the club moves from Rangers Plc into the new company and all of the titles and 140-year history will remain with the club. That was part of the two-stage process we set up with Charles Green all those weeks ago.

P.s. I wonder exactly why you have become such a diligent editor of many pages relating to Rangers F.C. all of a sudden? Another grinding an axe perchance?

Johnelwaq (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

but john just as many sources that say the club are company are serperate say the club is getting dissolved the problem is no one knows, although fisher might have taken recently to editing all rangers articles he hasnt done anything wrong apart from possible using POV , he is reporting what sources say,they might not also being neutral either but they are within the rule sof wikipediaAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this comment. The Newco Rangers article is a disgrace to wikipedia, violating several policies. James Morrison (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi there, just a quick query about your edit here. Is it not fair to describe the old Rangers club as defunct yet? A ship being decommissioned will be defunct before the last rivets are hoiked out. In the same way, forensic accountants will be soon be going through Rangers' remnants with a fine toothcomb, but surely that doesn't mean they are still functional until that process is completed. They no longer have any assets, players etc. hence they are not funct - they are de-funct! That's my understanding anyway? Cheers, Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, I must admit I hadn't thought of it like that. It's no big deal I guess, just wondered what your thoughts were. Keep up the good work! Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, claiming they have no assets nor any players is entirely erroneous. Please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the oldco still acutalyl own a few assesst which the liqduaiytors will be selling, one assesst the administratior have to sell is the spl shareAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!

Hey, Fishiehelper2, I just wanted to apologize to you for rollbacking your edit to the DRN here. I was using a tablet, and the stupid touchscreen thought I hit "rollback" instead of the ling to a page. :P Sorry! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Thanks Fishiehelper2 (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SFA membership

the answer to your question is oldco owns teh sfa membership share same with spl share but thewco cant buy the share from teh oldco itsd not assesst that can be bought like that sfa has to agre to the trasnferAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No i will try explaining again i suck at this type of thing, ok. we will call The Rangers Football Club PLC as oldco, Rangers F.C. as the club, Servo Scotland as newco. New rangers as newclub currently the oldco is in teh hands of the administrator soon liquidators, the oldco holds the sfa membership of the club, the oldco the membership is assesst just like the spl share but it can not be sold durectly without the approval of the sfa. the newco are trying to get the transfer of the club membership to them so they still own the club, but if the sfa refuse or newco refuses the terms of the tranfer the neco will have to form a new club and make a plication to register as a new club but this is not wha tthey have done ye.

so in summary accoridn gto the sfa oldco holds the club and newco has to get hter eapproval for it to move, if that happens the club cntuies as it was for the last 140 years if they refuse or newco dnt accept it it is thena new club udenr sfa rulesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

email the sfa to ask them to explain the sitution ask them is the servo scotland applicaiton anew club? ask them doies the rangers fc history carry onto servco scotland rangers fc and is the club the company, alothiugh your email cant be used here you can at least post a imag eof it and then we might be able ot all agree then all we need ot do is get the sfa to make a public annoucement on it, i cant answer how they where a meber prior to 1899 but if superbhoy is right they wher enot a memebr since he says it has to be company to compete you really need to email the sfaAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there is also things on teh sfa website that says the plc ons the club, that is the point i have been making the whole time wikipeida realie on sources and source contradicitng each other even to the point the same source says two different things, i agree if we can estbalish with source beyond a doubt it isa new club i support it, if ou notice i edit the newco rangers aritcle and try keep it right as well because i believe that is what the case is but i cant just ingore sources saying toher wise for the rangers fc article this isnt me attacking you but i dnt think any us understand coopration and hwo it works jsut look at big business and what they get away with at times, also because rangers siuttion is nota simple one even teh amdinsitrator have said as witht eh liduaitors it is quite complex means we cant rush things, when people point you to fiortina,leed and middleborugh article and hwo they dealt with liqudiation you think it hsouldnt be done like that but no one know trutly whats going on i think it time the pople who can answer these question publish a statement and amek ti clear then we can make wikipedia rightAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok rangers are not officially liquidated yet so do you not think it was a bit premature to make the ne article until they are as they could be saved in the same way. personally i dnt see there is any idiot out there that will pay the 150m debt out of there own pockets so will be liquidated i am more annoyed that instead of waiting user are just rushing. i plan to take the dispute further until we can get conesus on it i aint really bothered if it the current way or the other way just want it to be cleared voted on like afd and then we can all point to it for future and no one can then dispute it unless conesus changesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

have i ever said the numebr of supporter matter? i couldnt care less if they had 2 billion supporter, i only care that wikipedia article represent it correctly whether that makes rangers fans happy or rival happy i dnt care what they think i just report what it says in teh sources i really wish it was clear cut and i could back one side or the other but i cant back either side becaus eboth sides are correctAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Ibrox: Saying that Ibrox is the home of Newco Rangers rather than The Rangers Football Club Ltd is a fine idea, I'll go and implement it. Cheers.--Dingowasher (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please correct your rangers fc talk page post

please correc tht rangers fc talk post it wasnt me who said anytihng about wha tyoru quoting it was ricky or excape orbit your making me out to be the one that not goign by wikipedia policies and goign on my point of view which is the exact oppisite to most fansAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no problem we all make mistakes me more than most jut dnt want to be see as taking sides as i am trying to be more neutral now if i had the skills i would mediate and try get a cones us on it but i dnt so that why i a processing through the dispute levelsAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Newco Rangers; undoing edits

I've supplied sources within my edits to provide proof that an SFL members doesn't have to be a club (it can meerely be an association), it also provides evidence within the rules that any successful SFL application is "CONDITIONAL" upon being granted SFA membership. Unless you can refute this with evidence please do not edit the 'newco' page, which is specifically redirected from "Sevco" on the Rangers FC page, which documents a company. Ricky072 (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a consensus

can you point me to the policy that says gaining a consensus via a vote cant be done? secondly would you not say if there is a majority supporting one side or the other that isa consensus, i will update teh talk topic to reflect different just what i have read a vote does count as a consensus but i think i will have to say there needs to be x number of votes that how afds work a vote even if wikipedia doesnt define it as such, if a afds gets enough keeps or deletes merge over the other options then it will be done so in esscense that is a vote with a percentage cut off, just looking for the exact part of wikipedia policy it says as such and i will update15:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers F.C. trying to get a consensus

Please review your response and update it accordingly if required witht he updated question that is more neutral--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sandbox

hi fisherhelper

i probably didn't put myself across right, i will try explain

at the moment the article has been changed by a admin to say the club is the same as the one that was in the spl last season potential abouit to play in div3, what i am trying to do with the sandbox is make a version that says its the same club but aqlkso regarded as a new club if ou notice ricky has removed the bit i put about potential title stripping which i need to readd until it confirm if it will happen, although some are taking the question as a consensus i aint that whyt i said not with a consensus i am workng on potential consensus is changing but i wont call it i have got some input frpom outsisde people with no knowledge of this what i will do is as a admin next week to close it and say if there is a consensus if there is good if not we need to work on getting but this is a step forward although i might not do it after today personal attack on me. the sandbox isd that just for testing or work on a improvement it doesnt mean it will ever go live if after a admin closes it and it no consensus i will revert the sandbox back tp version prior to my edits.

again i dnt think there is a consensus yet but it is changing what to time will tell give me a day or two to update uit i cant do it in one big go alsi sandbox allows me to add stuff and someone to copyedit before going live--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

this is a big thank you for now agreeing to work on a nutral one article that represent both sides, we might still havea few disagreements on the way to forming it but that the process of wikipedia article disagreement and comprise to reach a consensus on enuitral article, because we are goign with it as seen as new club and countion club i wont oppose change from company to club, and it looks like badsynergy might be agreing to comprise way forward to so we are movign forward finallyAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i think we should look to change a lot of the reference where possible to be not primary sources but for now as we work on makign the neutral article we should use whatever ones we can find but logn term before putting it lvie i rather we swithc to reliable 3rd partry ones so ther eno disputing it

i hope that wordign can be allowed to, we are not saying the club is alive or it is dead we are showign what the sources say and that is what wikipedia is all about the editors who refuse to accept that can be reported for being disruptuive, that fact we are trying to find comprise if the ones who wont accept it dnt we can report them and there opinions be discoutned, i dnt want to do that i feel everyone views should be heard but if there preventing a way forward it will need done--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

herald

can you quote the bit from the herald i cant read it becaus ei have viewed to main article shtis month lol, i might be able to view it from gogole or somethign but if you can paste the section i be grateful, dnt doubt what you saying and i say it be reasonable to say the media dnt want to call it because they dnt wan tthe backlash so by not sying for sure what they think and refering to both there covering there own arses--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

do you fancy rewording the question on teh request for comment so there more neutral and can get a consensus from something more clearer?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

im not giving up on the sandbox if we can get a version that present both and the ones who object can give valid reasons we can be bold and then request it be done, if we are no nearer gettinga consenssus to merge and label as both ill ask for the to be exteneded and speak to the admins see if they will consider indefintite so forcing everyone to agree a comprise and way forward barring that i think we will have to go with request for comment and head to arbcom i really thought we might be moving forward but some users will not just agree both is correct , im not goign to give up jsut yet but i dnt see alight at the end of the tunnel--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the way forward is...

Since it is a few editors on both sides of the ragument tht are not willign to accept that wikipedia is made from reliable sources and reliable sources are as you put it on the opposite side of the fence, we report them for topic bans so they can not particapte in the discussion allowing us to ove forward, i realyl dnt want to do it but i think those editors will never let us move forward--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 08:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

these are the users i think who are stopping progress

• BritishWatcher (talk · contribs)
• Clavdia chauchat (talk · contribs)
• Jmorrison230582‎ (talk · contribs)
• Johnelwaq (talk · contribs)
• Monkeymanman (talk · contribs)
• Ricky072 (talk · contribs)
• Superbhoy1888 (talk · contribs)
• TerriersFan (talk · contribs)
• WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk · contribs)

you have a point it wouldnt settle the long term dispute, but if once we create a article that is one that says both and any of those users reject we might need to report them as there then being disruptive and not following the basic wikipeida prinicals of consensus, verifiability, and reliable sources it unfortnat the sources wont stick to one side and not jump on both sides but we will have ot deal with it and that what we are moving towards, oh are you sure it was sold to sevco 5088 and then move to sevco scotland from what i have read it went directly to sevco scotland, it was meant to go to sevco 5088 but didnt i think we should source that so it clear that it did happen i coudl easily be wrong im goign to start the process off covnerting to cite so if we can geta consensus for it the article will be near GA status as well, ive already got AWB to fix a lot fo the errors in teh article. something i foudn interesting is i brought the rangers articles to ANI and someone comment it can say both--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i just thought of one other thign we might want to do, since even sources sometimes say it the plc and sometimes the club maybe we should list it as such ill try makea amendent with a reference for both sides and if oyu can tidy it up i appericate it, if it doesnt make sense or i misread the osurce please revert, ill do it later todat or tomorrow--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

here is wha ti have just changed in the opening senteance

"The Rangers Football Club is a football club based in Glasgow, set to play in Division 3 of the Scottish Football League. The club's home is the all-seated 51,082-capacity Ibrox Stadium in south-west Glasgow. The club was relaunched in 2012 after the previous incarnation entered liquidation on 14th June[1] but it is unclear whether it is only the company The Rangers Football Club PLC or the club that is being liquidated."

does that seem neutral to oyu.and clear and consius? i still need to put referenes in which supoprts both sides but that way we are not saying the club is liqudiated but we ar ento saying it isnt as the sources refer to both. if it aint fine either revert it or try improve it :)Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

seems fine to me but maybe a bit of a alterration "While the club and some media outlets sees it as a continuation of the club officially founded in 1873, others view the relaunched Rangers as a new club." but put suport evidence ie reference to both points well all three points, so a statement from rangers not neccessraily from there site, a source that states it as the same club, and source saying it is a new club, that way it clear that the media is split on it, we could of put hundred of refenrece to it but it would jsut add undue weight 1 for each would be enough as long as there reliable

ok i have made another changed version can you make your poitn son it

−

"The Rangers Football Club commonly known as Rangers F.C. is a football club based in Glasgow, set to play in Division 3 of the Scottish Football League. The club's home is the all-seated 51,082-capacity Ibrox Stadium in south-west Glasgow. The club was relaunched in 2012 after the previous incarnation entered liquidation on 14th June.[4][5] While the club{reference to go here} and some media{reference to go here} outlets sees it as a continuation of the club officially founded in 1873 and that only the company that ran the club The Rangers Football Club PLC that is liquidated{reference to go here}, others view the relaunched Rangers as a new club{reference to go here} as it seen as the club is liquidated{reference to go here}. Scottish Premier League clubs voted against accepting the relaunched club into the top flight[6] but it was accepted as an associate member of the Scottish Football League, starting in the bottom division."

−

do you think the baove is neutral and makes sense? i think we have to be clear that the media are spliting on it, and that there view that teh company that ran the club is lqiudiated only and that a view is the club was the company that way no one can say we are being biased to one side--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protection extension

i have requested at the admins who put the protection in place to extend by at least ano9ther week for both article and explain we are trying tog et neutral article that reflects both sides of the argument--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Park

There is no consensus for your change of the Murray Park. You have been reverted 4 times now on this now and have made no attempt to defend your change. Please stop putting it back in. Murray Park is used as a training ground by Rangers. Hair-splitting over the company name that owns it is pointless detail of little relevance to this article. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The team that trains at Murray Park is the Rangers team. This is what people want to know and is the primary fact that the article should lead with. Adding confusing detail about which company owns it is of very little relevance to the lead sentence of the article and is verging on coatracking. The infobox details the owner, and there is already information about its sale in the lead section. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Labour for Independence for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Labour for Independence is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Labour for Independence until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference of identity dispute within opening paragraph

As mentioned in the talk page, I strongly believe a long winded reference to the dispute within the opening paragraph is wholly out of place and inappropriate. Although the "new club vs same club" dispute is obviously relevant to Wikipedians discussing the page content, to the ordinary user who has googled "Rangers" or such like, the dispute (which to any extent that is newsworthy at all now, it will clearly not be when all mention of "new" naturally becomes outdated WP:NOT#NEWS) cannot be assumed to be sufficient relevance to merit referencing with the opening sentences.

In the spirit of consensus which I have promoted in order to resolve this dispute, in contrast perhaps to others who share my over-riding position, the compromise position would perhaps be referencing the identity dispute in the form of a specific sub-section, or as part of the "Relaunched Club..." section.

I would hope you also acknowledge the need to reach consensus and in this regard would welcome your thoughts on the matter.Gefetane (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

maybe give us time once we get to a point both me and fisher agree it represent both sides we can the start looking at undue weight and move stuff around but lets get the content that going oin sorted first--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fishiehelper, I understand your reasoning and agree the long term stability of the Rangers FC article is important.

However if the dispute regarding identity was adequately referenced in a more appropriate location within a sub-section, editors would not be justified in rewriting anything. Any such attempts could easily be rebuffed simply by pointing out the dispute they were presumably trying to weigh in on was already referenced, in a form appropriate to the layout of the article. One concise sentence in the opening paragraph is a possibiliy, but I cannot think of any sentence that would encapsulate the dispute adequately and not appear long-winded and out of place, which the current sandbox version overly is.Gefetane (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for creating the new Labour for Independence article, and for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia for the public. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ranges sandbox

hiya,

i have been making changes as with other user trying to achive a form that everyone agress since some changes are pretty big in my opinion and your on the opppisite side of the fence so to say your input is as valid to me as everyone else, once we can get a version we can all agree on we need ot propose it to others and then make changes from there, edinburhg ander madea good point to me we need to fill it with loads of sources and if neccessary primary one so thre no disputing the combined article--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be Warned - Rangers FC - an attempt to push through a controversial 'same club' approach

Hello. You have contributed to the Newco Rangers article so I thought yuou should be made aware that an attempt is being made to undermine this article by pushing through a 'same club' approach despite many of us believing this is heavily biased and very selective use of the sources. You may wish to follow what is proposed at the Talk:Rangers F.C./sandbox. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Rangers F.C.". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 August 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The United Kingdom Barnstar of National Merit
		For contributing so much to all United Kingdom related articles! People like you help keep things going.
		this WikiAward was given to Fishiehelper2 by Rcsprinter (shout) @ on 10:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Rangers F.C., to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 20:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

rangers live on

hiya, i know i was away for the weekend when the protection lifted and by the time i got back it was changed, i have just went with what seems toeb the consenus, but i have insisted on certains aspects remains but i have still meet resistence but now my aim is to get the article to FA, so i still have work to dowith references and some even today view them as a new club so the problem hasnt gone away liek some think, i have gave up in trying to keep the famine song in but ill admit it was me that got the section reduced an split but that becaus ei have been reading the ga review, peer reviews and since i ma trying to get FA i knew it had to change, but i have refused to allow the core priniplce of it to be removed, which are teh sources and what they say, for example prior to changing it, it was list of incidents which is more liek report news so someone condense them into one paragraph citing the refenreces. ill admit i aint happy witht eh article but i would be goign against consensus to force achange a new one that basically says reformed will have to be gained i have tried 4 times and every time it is reerted i even took the step of making it a reference note so it owuldnt be glarying int eh infobox liek some fans dnt want it to, but there still be footnote at the bottom of the page, but as i say i go with consensus and sources, that why i wont let it be censored completely anything removed that the source say expliting i revertAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rangers article

I couldn't help noticing the message you left on another users page regarding concerns you have about the Rangers article, so if you don't mind I will respond to provide my perspective. The article is not some kind of hatchet job by supporters of the club, as an experienced editor you should know that anyone attempting to impose an unjustified agenda on an article as high profile as that, one being watched by 100s of other editors, is not plausible. Far from being 'gutted', the article has actually got bigger. Too big in the opinions of many, which is why editors have been focused on condensing content, removing material where not relevant, allowing sub-articles to absorb the detail where appropriate. The article is about the club, not the misdemeanours of the supporters, which is why it was deemed appropriate to correct the former imbalance that saw a section on sectarian incidents (involving fans, not the club) being 20 times larger than the section on the club's greatest period of domestic success, for instance. You clearly dedicated many hours of your time fighting for the two articles/two clubs approach and I respect your commitment and persistence in pushing that perspective, even if it ultimately proved in vain. In the same spirit, I hope you will respect the many hours myself, other editors, and most of all (by some distance) AndrewCrawford, have spent seeking to improve the article through consensus, balance, and firm reliance on sources, and not dismiss the situation so disparagingly with unjustified, throwaway insinuations about perceived "Rangers fans". If I have misread your intentions, I apologise in advance. Gefetane (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, by the way :-) Gefetane (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that an impression is given that sectarian chanting no longer occurs, there is no content that states that explicitly or implicitly, with cited examples of notable incidents provided up to 2011. I would oppose any such suggestion, which of course would be entirely incorrect. I sympathise to an extent regarding the inclusion of the famine song incident, which I pushed for inclusion within the 'sectarian singing' section, but was resisted by an argument that it wasn't technically 'sectarian' on the grounds, spurious in my opinion, that there was no religious content. On the other side of the divide, other editors said the entire section should be renamed in include 'Racism' just to include reference to the chant, which I conversely opposed on the grounds of undue weight. Rarely a dull day on that page, although if I understand it correctly, 1RR has now been introduced, which has calmed things down considerably, which I think was the intention! Gefetane (talk) 08:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i dnt think the 1RR has cam in for that it to do with another subject but it be touchy to to do reverting on that section mroe than once. but my point i was goign to make is the famine song is by the scottish courts racist, not secteran directly, the problem is how to include that without giving undue weight and adding something not related to the section, it might be better suited to the rivaliry part, i think it is still on the rangers supporter article itselfAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

just a suggest for you all, sicne i think this topic will come back up, change the secterainism chanting to bigortie chanting that would covers anytihng in intorlance to another beliefe, i wont really take part in the discussion ive got mroe work on the article to do and some of the template the article uses to bring the pag ein lien wiht MOS and FAAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

or discrimatte chanting might be betterAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers FC

I see you have changed my text concerning Rangers having to play in the third division. [3]. You had the cheek to say that you were replacing it with better English. I don't know how your English is but mine is just fine and my text was good English thank you very much. You also decided off your own back not to bother with what the source actually said. The SFL members voted to make Rangers start in the third division. You seem to think that they just "decided" to do so. How did they decide on this? Did they flip a coin perhaps? Did they play lowest card plays in the third division maybe? No, they actually voted on it. Why do you thing removing that information will improve the article? I hope that this is not a case of the new boy coming along (I've been reverted twice now with this info) and those who have been around for a while thinking they have authority to do as they wish. Either way I'll be keeping clear of the article from now on as it appears sources don't really count for much there. Regards. Clay More47 (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A successful application to the Scottish Football League was secured" is perfectly good English. I can't believe someone writing on wikipedia would think otherwise. I'm afraid it is you who should be studying a little harder on the English language. Good luck. Regards. Clay More47 (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can also keep your snidey little remarks to yourself in future and away from my talk page. Regards Clay More47 (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easing off?

Do you think it might be time for you to ease off the Rangers pages a little. While I'm all for giving big clubs a bit of a kicking once they're down :) I think you're maybe getting a bit too caught up in all this, fighting over little details, battling to get contensious words in, etc. Maybe time to step back a little bit - just my two cents worth. 220.255.1.121 (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying I don't agree with all your edits, but just that you're maybe getting a bit too close to this one. Some of your edits are in danger of being disruptive, such as "Murray Park is the training ground of the association football team referred to as Newco Rangers" [[4]], not to say a bit obsessive. As a small town club supporter, I'm all for having a laugh at the big club's expense, but some of the edits going on at Rangers F.C. and associated articles are in danger of becoming disruptive. Far too much nit-picking over minor points - why not make more use of WP:RFC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.152 (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers FC

This post is simple curiosity, and can be ignored if you wish, but I am genuinely interested in what motivates your continuing interest in Rangers Football Club articles. You are clearly not a supporter of the club, but also do not appear to be interested in any rival clubs. Looking back through your history you seem to be of Nationalist/anti-union political persuasion and, considering Rangers associations to unionism, am I right in suggesting this is your main motivation? I have enjoyed offering a rival perspective and have often found your contributions, even when I've been in direct disagreement, robust and challenging to counter. The matter has, at least to observers like ourselves who taken the time to research in detail into the many issues, been resolved quite conclusively, and positively, from my own perspective - perhaps setting a precedent to other indebted clubs, whether that would be good or bad for the game, who knows? Is there a certain "end game" which you are pursuing regarding the Rangers article? If it is to reopen the whole debate at some point I would be strongly against that, for time-keeping reasons more than anything! However, if it is to ensure this matter is not simply swept under the carpet by those who, quite rightly, feel embarrassed at their club's fall from grace, I can assure you it's a concern I also share. Gefetane (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I think "reformed" should be avoided - its strongly associated with "phoenix clubs" that are formally recognised as new clubs, have to have new names, new badges etc. I understand why Rangers supporters would want to make a clear distinction between their own case and this other category of clubs. I prefer a word you originally introduced, "relaunched". Less baggage from prior association but still makes the point. I think its right to remain vigilant. When experienced editors like Clavdia Chauchat are stating views like this "This is a completely different 'Rangers' who emerged from the ashes of the old club who are being liquidated. They had to enter at the bottom rung of the ladder because a Newco, as the name suggests, is a new club with no history." I'll be remaining vigilant. I hope to start expanding into creating some new articles, mountain walking is my main interest, but still a virgin in that respect! Took far too long to get interested in Wikipedia. Gefetane (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh Agreement (2012)

Hello, Fishiehelper2, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on Edinburgh Agreement (2012), appears to be directly copied from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/Government/concordats/Referendum-on-independence. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Edinburgh Agreement (2012) if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Déjà vu

Some things just make one shake ones head:

• Talk:Social care in England

I usually can't be arsed with nonsense like this, but I know that several years back you decided to tackle the dafter extremes of this "England = Yookay" phenomenon in the (related, but higher profile) healthcare articles, so feel free to contribute your accumulated wisdom. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1981 in Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1924 Olympics (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) 15:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

being bold

i forgot to say on the edit summary before such a big change get a consensus firstAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

nothing wrong with what you did, but because of the subject regarding the history its is bold, i dnt have any objection but it need to be reqorded in that section i think your right it appioratte it noted the history is disputed so to say, but at the same time what you moved need to remain where it is, i would reocmmend gettinga ocnsensus or you will have others saying your being biased im not so dnt worry i am more protecting what your doing :) that why i removed the directors for now because it disputed again and it better removed that content warredAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: Well over to you...

Fishie, the season article has been like that from the start, this is the first time the issue has been disputed, it even stayed for a while on the main page until you brought it up. I'm not an awfully experienced wiki campaigner but is there not some onus on you to try and get a consensus for removing something so common on football club articles? Have you gone around articles of all football clubs with complicated ownership structures and changed this? The holding company runs everything about the club including paying the employees which include managers, players etc, so do we start doubting whether they should be listed as well now?

I do accept the ambiguity which is why I feel having the title as 'holding company board of directors' would be a good compromise. Someone like Charles Green is in the media all the time referred to as the 'Rangers chief executive' or along those lines, talking about club business and how he is running the club, not about how he is running the holding company. I feel pretty strongly such figures should be included in the article. Sparhelda 19:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

Where as I previously respected we had a difference of opinion, I have now lost respect for you as an editor as I now believe your contributions are aimed only at disrupting. I had gained the impression that, although you did not yourself agree, you had recognised that a consensus had been reached and that, as the key sources now recognised Rangers FC as having remained in existence, Wikipedia should reflect this reality. I thought you would be dignified enough to admit defeat and accept that your particular perception of the situation, even if not incorrect, was at the very least in opposition to consensus, and not supported by current key sources. However, you seem intent on - for some unknown reason - continuing to push your perspective when it is clear that your attempts to cast doubt on the status of Rangers FC are entirely futile. I am disappointed and can only hope that you recognise that flogging a dead horse in this manner achieves nothing positive for anyone, or the site in general. Gefetane (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1707 in England, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anne of Great Britain (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) 11:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I am assuming you are refering to the rangers page, the 1RR rule only applies to anything related to the troubles which is basically secterism. but if you do 3 reverts or put the same thing in within 24 hours it is edit warring you are best reporting it at wp:ewAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You must be joking

No consensus was reached for your point of view on the situation either, the relevant discussions actually seemed to have more agreeing with me. This is a very sinister way to try and solve it. Sparhelda 23:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Fore!

I see you're working on articles like 1970 in Scotland, 1971 in the United Kingdom, etc. One major event you're leaving out of these articles is The British Open aka The Open Championship which is played yearly in one of these places. Thought I'd mention it so you can include that in the articles. Cheers!...William 13:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. Of course, if you have the time, that is something you may be able to do yourself - you probably know much more about it than me :) Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

1963 in Scotland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Elgin and Linwood

1970 in Scotland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kingston Bridge

1996 in Scotland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Irvine

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1707 in Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jacobite (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) 19:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1699 in Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wick (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) 11:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

1689 in Scotland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jacobite

1690 in Scotland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jacobite

1694 in Scotland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jacobite

1697 in Scotland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Scullion

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1932 in Scotland may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1896 in Scotland may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Darlington 1883 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

1934 in Scotland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Liner

1935 in Scotland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Gallacher

1936 in Scotland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Leader of the Labour Party

1941 in Scotland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to VC

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1900 in Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free Church of Scotland (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) 14:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darlington

Hello. I did suggest going to the article talk page, but here'll do. I think the problem is that the changes you were making read as if you were trying to rewrite the article to eliminate any connection with DFC. If there had been no DFC, and it had not failed financially, there would be no 1883, so to remove the brief outline of DFC's history as irrelevant removes the background to 1883's formation. Rewriting history to suit a particular point of view does the readers a disservice. Maybe the article as was leant too much towards the DFC fans viewpoint, I wouldn't dispute that, but there's rather more to 1883's foundation than a corporate takeover.

As to templates, the new club is relevant to DFC, so it appears on that template. Likewise the category. If you want to invent a new almost-contentless navbox for an eighth-tier club, I'm not going to stop you, but I don't see the point. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. The reason there are separate articles is because someone wrote an article for the new club and nobody bothered to argue; it isn't any sort of Wikipedia policy. Whether there are separate articles or not tends to be a function of hindsight; if history views two (or more) clubs as sufficiently closely related that it would be confusing to treat them separately, then they share a page. The FA's rules required what became 1883 to be treated as a new club, and consequently required the name change. But I don't think you need to be a Darlington fan to see they share a history.

This (if you ignore the self-promotional tone, given it's the website of the lawyers who progressed the takeover by the DFCRG via the DFC1883 company) gives a fair overview of the timeline. It's unusual writing about the beginnings of a football club, but I'd suggest the 1883 page be structured along the lines of any other football club page, with a chronological history section that includes both of, but doesn't put undue emphasis on either of, its following on from DFC and its being a new club. In a few years' time, there'll hopefully be more football and less legalities...

As to navboxes, their function is to provide an easy way of navigating between related articles. Clubs playing much below the Conference (tier 5) rarely have related articles to navigate between, because topics like seasons or players or managers or history of a club at that level would fail notability criteria, so they don't need and don't have navboxes. Because of 1883's relationship with DFC, it belongs on the DFC navbox, which means the DFC navbox belongs in the 1883 article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Fishiehelper2. You have new messages at Matty.007's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1877 in Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Merry (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) 11:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish History

Hi Fishiehelper2,

I saw that you were active in creating and editing the Scottish history pages, and wondered if you wanted to collaborate until they are all done?

Thanks, Matty.007 16:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I don't own these pages any more than anyone else so always happy to see others contributing. Once we get the articles started, the real work will be to add to them. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I was meaning was that we could try and get the non-existant ones going...

Matty.007 17:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I was merely trying to say that all help is welcome but neither I nor anyone else has to agree or give permission for anyone to contribute - we all own the pages equally. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your fine work creating History pages! Matty.007 19:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Years

Hi Fishiehelper2

I am trying to reinvigorate WikiProject Years, and I thought you may be interested. Please respond to this message here, and post your name here if you are interested.

Thanks, Matty.007 20:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1872 in Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Hunter (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) 11:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cricket in the United Kingdom for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cricket in the United Kingdom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cricket in the United Kingdom until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jack | ^talk page 08:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unionism

To be pro the Union is not to have a Unionist ideology, that has a very specific meaning in British politics. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Air Passenger Duty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Keith Brown. 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) 10:10, 1 November 2015 (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) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

2016 in Scotland

added a link pointing to River Dee

2016 in the United Kingdom

added a link pointing to River Dee

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1326 in Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of Corbeil. 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) 09:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Health Service

What is your objection to a bit of information about the NHS as a whole?Rathfelder (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I have not used rollback for ages and forgot I couldn't give a comment for my action. I didn't like your first edit as it is unnecessary to split this article into sections. This article should serve as a general explanation page and then allow the readers to go into more detail if they wish by following a link to whatever health service they wish to understand more. My only problem with your second addition was that it could confuse readers as it was written in a way that gave the impression that the NHS was a single system. Just because the guardian wishes to add up the spending of the four health services to give a total does not mean that it is helpful to readers to present the information in that way. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've also removed the special permissions you have because of the long-standing socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shocked to say the least. Spiriofstgeorge messaged me in 2011 about working on 'years' articles so it should not be a surprise that we are both interested in those articles. Anyway, if some editors don't welcome my many contributions over many years, so be it - I have plenty other things I can be doing. No hard feelings - I've enjoyed being part of the project. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Outpatient clinic (hospital department) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Outpatient clinic (hospital department) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outpatient clinic (hospital department) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. PanchoS (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crimea annexation RfC

I've opened an RfC on Talk: Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation on the question

"Should the information about opinion polls, currently in the subsection Crimean public opinion be moved into the subsection Crimean status referendum?"

As you recently edited this talk page, I thought you might like to share your views. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Fishiehelper2. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of Provisional IRA dead

The article List of Provisional IRA dead has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Page appears to be a breach of WP:NOTMEMORIAL - the consensus on various Troubles-related articles is that such lists should not be created as individual pages or as lists within articles. E.g., Talk:Birmingham_pub_bombings#The_dead; Talk:Omagh_bombing/Archives/2008/10; Talk:Kingsmill_massacre#Names_of_victims and many more.

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. Bastun^Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of [[:here], [Talk:M62_coach_bombing#The_Dead]]

The article [[:here], [Talk:M62_coach_bombing#The_Dead]] has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is a long-standing tradition, especially on Troubles-related articles, of not including lists of the dead on Wikipedia. The policy cited in support of not including such lists is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Discussions have taken place on many previous occasions, on various different articles, including but not limited to, e.g., [Talk:Omagh_bombing/Archives/2007/8

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. Bastun^Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Provisional IRA dead for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Provisional IRA dead is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Provisional IRA dead until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bastun^Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pressure groups in Scotland

The article Pressure groups in Scotland has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:LISTN and is unsourced.

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. JBchrch talk 14:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Stan Williams (author)

The article Stan Williams (author) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

An individual that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. The book he wrote appears to be non-notable, and as notability is not inherited, being a "contemporary of the Beatles" does not confer any notability to himself. Searching for sources brought up nothing but mentions in local papers.

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. Rorshacma (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of Hindu temples in England

The article List of Hindu temples in England has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Seems there is more developed List of Hindu temples in the United Kingdom page. This page seems obsolete.

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. Asteramellus (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Rangers liquidated as CVA formally rejected". The Scotsman.