User talk:Fippe

Welcome!
Hello, Fippe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Inner Irish border map
I reverted your change of map to the Irish border article. The big problem with your map is that your choice of colours is wildly inappropriate. Traditionally, Orange is associated with the Orange Order and the Democratic Unionist Party extreme of Ulster Unionism. In that context (though not otherwise‡), Green becomes associated with the Sinn Féin extreme of Irish nationalism. So colouring the map that way suggests dog+lamp-post territory marking and the Northern Ireland flags issue. Wikipedia does not want to get bogged down in that mire.

I'm unconvinced that the original map is a problem but then I don't have sight impairment.

So the options are (a) leave the map in the colour it is, just making the border line thicker or (b) choose non-contentious colours like purple and yellow (not blue, not red).

‡ In rugby and hockey, the all island team plays in green. In association football, both teams play in green (and white for NI, and orange for RoI). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the controversy, that was not what I was going for. I thought it would be nice if one colour would be green, since Ireland is referred to as the "Green Island" in my native language, German. I assumed it was the same in English, but that does not necessarily seem to be the case. I took the orange from the Irish flag, not knowing what it stands for.
 * Since according to you green still is considered an Irish colour I'd like to keep it for the sovereign state if that is okay. I'm not a big fan of yellow in maps, since it often does not look good, depending on monitor settings. Would it be non-inappropriate to leave the sovereign state Ireland in green and use purple for Northern Ireland? If not, would any combination involving green for the sovereign state be non-inappropriate? --Fippe (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's ok, I guessed that you might not be aware of the swamp! Ireland (the island) is known as the Emerald Isle and its colour is green - but both parts of the island have equal claim to it, as seen by their football colours. So you can't use green for one part and something else for the other part. So the options are (a) green for the whole island, just a more evident line for the border: this seems to me to be the least controversial and I recommend that one; or (b) different colours completely for both but beware of strong associations! Red is associated with England. Blue is probably ok but has some historical associations. Yellow is probably OK but is associated with cowardice! Green and orange we have discussed. Purple is probably ok but is the UKIP colour so don't use it for NI. And don't forget red/green colour blindness!
 * We have a proverb in English, maybe it exists in German too? "If you are in a hole, stop digging!" ("being in a hole" means being in trouble), as every way you turn on option (b) may have a hidden meaning in Northern Ireland, they are very paranoid sensitive :-) I strongly advise option (a)!
 * (Your English seems excellent but if I have used any colloquial expressions that are not clear, please don't hesitate to ask me to explain). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

University of Hannover
While I agree that you moved to the current official English name, I doubt that it is the common name. The place has had many names in history, why single out one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Because it is the current one. You wouldn't have Istanbul's article at Konstantinople or Byzantine, nor Nur-Sultan's at Astana, nor Mumbai's at Bombay, nor Chelsea Manning's at Bradley Manning. The old names are mentioned, as they should, which is enough. Leibniz University Hannover is also widely used, this Wikipedia article was one of the few high-profile sources for the name "University of Hanover". --Fippe (talk) 10:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that Hanover is spelt with one "n" in English and that, whatever the German title of universities, they are generally referred to in English as "University of Foo" where Foo is the name of the town or city. "University of Hanover" is a very common English spelling. Bermicourt (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that Hannover is the English spelling of the city, it just is not the common name yet, likely somewhat due to Wikipedia's influence. Please be aware that "Leibniz University Hannover" is both the official and the common name of the University. Please cite sources to back up your claims the next time. Please be aware that articles are named "Foo", where Foo is the name of the subject. Please be aware that "University of Hanover" is not a very common English spelling anymore, but those who still use this archaic name likely do so due to Wikipedia's influence. --Fippe (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understood the difference of official name and common name yet, or would not have moved back. Please try to discuss the matter on the article talk, instead of edit warring. How about a requested move, saying that you want to change from the common name which is a few decades old to the official name which dates to 2018. You may even get support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I added a colon to your comment, since you were probably responding to me.
 * I think you have not understood that in this case, there is no difference between the common and the official name. The name which is now official in English has already been in use unofficially since 2006, when the German name change happened. Now that Leibniz University Hannover is not just common, but also official, there is no case for *University of Hanover*. I agree, An edit war is not necessary. If someone wants to move the page back to the archaic name they will have to go through the process of requesting a move if they can cite sources. --Fippe (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the education. I won't waste time, particularly as I like the name, see Neustädter Kirche, Hanover (where Leibniz was buried) and Erich Barke. I wonder why even te German article has no names of presidents. Back to music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anne Frank, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anne Frank School. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Journal of Unsolved Questions


The article Journal of Unsolved Questions has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources discussing this journal in-depth. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG."

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 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 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Journal of Unsolved Questions for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Journal of Unsolved Questions 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 Articles for deletion/Journal of Unsolved Questions until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Globalhash notification
Thanks for the globalhash notification. I've been debating whether or not I should go, but it's like 3 hours away, mostly on dirt roads, and I don't have a great off-road vehicle. So I think I'm not going, but it's so tempting. McKay (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

"KC3" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect KC3 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 3 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 16:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hi Fippe. Thank you for your work on Elephantopoides barkhausensis. Another editor, Voorts, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

voorts (talk/contributions) 23:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)