User talk:Frenchmalawi

Thanks
Thanks for letting me know, I'm glad if something I've written is useful, especially so many years later! - Nunh-huh 21:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949 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/Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949 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. Scolaire (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI
Just so you won't think it just "disappeared", our discussion that was listed at Talk:Burma#Burma or Myanmar? was moved by another editor to a subpage, Talk:Burma/Myanmar, to follow the guidelines at the TOP of the Talk:Burma page. – P AINE E LLSWORTH  C LIMAX !  02:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Police child protection powers in the United Kingdom
Hello! Thanks for your help on this article, I have made your suggested changes. Please change anything else that you think could be worded better =) Thanks again, ツStacey (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo
I'm looking at the maps now and I see that Kosovo has a solid white outline in the new Russia map, but not the original. In the Ukraine maps, it's a dashed line. Is that your concern? Kosovo should have a dashed line? EvergreenFir (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Tagging FutureTrillionaire here as they are the original author of the proposed Russian map. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Started request here: GL/I EvergreenFir (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes correct - User:EvergreenFir - Either no line or a dotted one is appropriate in my view. It's a disputed territory. Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been fixed! File:Russian_Federation_(orthographic_projection)_-_Crimea_disputed.svg EvergreenFir (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User:EvergreenFir - I do appreciate your effort and have no doubt you mean well; but the updated map as linked here by you is just the same. Kosovo is represented as if it were a regular country like any other. I clicked into it and zoomed in as much as one can. If you do so, I think you will see what I mean. Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sigh, someone reverted it... will revert. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

And again... image was protected on Commons. Re-opened edit request. Feel free to chime in. Graphics_Lab/Illustration_workshop. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Response
In case you missed - I don't know if it comes up in alerts since I didn't use colons. Abstractematics (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Vanjagenije (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State 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/His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State 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. Scolaire (talk) 08:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

RM notification
Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --В²C ☎ 17:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:3

 * Just so you know, when you list a dispute at the third opinion noticeboard, you are supposed to sign with five tildes instead of four so as to leave out your name (this makes the dispute request appear more neutral). Have a nice day. .  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 19:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * User talk:Erpert: Thanks. Appreciate the tip, though I think that practice of omitting the four tildas is really silly. I've discussed the dispute a bit more with the editor on the Talk: Ulster page. You know what WP is like, there is no prospect of any consensus and its a small minority interest topic that not many editors will bother with (doubt it will will get to more than me, him and maybe one other). Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:3O
Thank you for listing your dispute at Third opinion. Your request did not follow the guidelines for listing disputes. These guidelines are in place because they make sure that the editor who writes the Third Opinion is not biased, and that (s)he can easily see what the dispute is about.

The description of the dispute should be concise and neutral, and you should sign with the timestamp only. A concise and neutral description means that only the subject matter of the dispute should be described, and not your (nor anyone else's) views on it. For example, in a dispute about reliable sources, do not write "He thinks this source is unreliable", but rather write "Disagreement about the reliability of a source". To sign with only the timestamp, and without your username, use five tildes instead of four.

Your request for a Third Opinion may have been edited by another editor to follow the guidelines - feel free to edit it again if necessary. If the dispute is of such a nature that it cannot follow the guidelines, another part of the dispute resolution process may be able to help you. Regards, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 15:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources for official name
Two sources are included re its official name: The EU and the CIA World Fact Book. If you follow the links, both sources say its official name is plain "Libya". "Libya" is also the name used and notified to UN. If it's been changed to "State of Libya" proper sources are needed to show this. In the meantime I've removed the references to "State of" and the statement concerning a change having been made which did not cite any sources whatsoever. For avoidance of doubt: Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * U.S. CIA world factbook lists "Libya" as the long form name;
 * EU lists "Libya" as long form name;
 * UN uses "Libya" and includes the following note "Following the adoption by the General Assembly of resolution 66/1, the Permanent Mission of Libya to the United Nations formally notified the United Nations of a Declaration by the National Transitional Council of 3 August changing the official name of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to "Libya" and changing Libya's national flag."

Your edits to Catalan independence
Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point may lead to a block or ban. So can wikihounding. Your edits to Catalan independence were both, an attempt to get back at me for my (reasonable) reverts at Provisional Government of Ireland (1922). I won't take it to ANI on this occasion, because I don't need the drama, but please try to be sensible in future. Scolaire (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

John Moore
Hi. I guess you didn't read the edit summary I left on John Moore? It's a disambiguation page, and according to the Manual of Style the only wiki links on a disambiguation page should be links to the articles being disambiguated. So it doesn't matter whether he was president of Connacht or anywhere else, it shouldn't be linked on that page. I will remove the link again. CalzGuy (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Point taken; please correct the description though. Frenchmalawi (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I corrected the description, the substantive point. Frenchmalawi (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Brexit/Legal system
Thanks for finishing my rollback for me! I screwed it up.

Ireland is the name of an island that is shared by two countries. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Signature
Try using on your user page or the signature icon on the edit toolbar. DrKay (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * If you are on an iPad and want to use the ~ then simply, on the standard keyboard, press the .?123 button in the bottom left, then press the #+- button above it. That will give you access to all those special characters like ~ [ ] { etc. Canterbury Tail talk 11:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * test```` Thanks very much. I’ve found it.  But I type on a keyboard on which the iPad is placed.  A case that the iPad sits in that has a keyboard.  Frenchmalawi (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I’ve found it on the case keyboard too now; thanks again; I think problem resolved!Frenchmalawi (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Open Parliament License
Hi there. You have a large amount of UK Parliament copyrighted material on your userpage, but you have no acknowledgement of the Open Parliament License which you're obliged to display alongside the information. I'm afraid I have to insist, under Wikipedia's copyright policies and the terms of the Open Parliament License, that you either A) remove the content copied from the parliamentary minutes and other area's of the UK Parliament website or related sites or B) provide the correct license display and links. Failure to do so will mean the material will have to be deleted and struck from the history logs. Canterbury Tail talk 18:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have remove the offending piece from your user page. Canterbury Tail talk 11:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Republic
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland. It is clear you have an agenda to impose this throughout Wikipedia on several articles and the issue needs sorted at a central place with broader input.

I reverted your edit to Commonwealth of Nations as it is groundless and sourceless. Please do not restore and let the newly started discussion at the WikiProject take place and come to a conclusion before trying to impose your contentious viewpoint on this issue on Wikipedia. Also you are not allowed to use Wikipedia as a reference/source for statements in articles. Mabuska (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please seek consensus before re-adding contentious and dubious edits (altered or otherwise) to articles especially when they are under discussion. As such please stop putting your contentious edit into the Commonwealth article until a consensus is reached. Mabuska (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
Please stop changing links to Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state) as you continue to do in this edit. As you're very aware the article is at Republic of Ireland and it's unlikely to change. Altering links from the link direct to the article to your preferred link, against clear consensus in discussions you've been involved in and are extremely aware of, is very much the definition of disruptive editing. If you continue edits like this you run the risk of being blocked. Canterbury Tail <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 11:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You've been warned about this before, yet you continue to make this edit. This is very deliberate disruptive editing. As a result you have been blocked from editing for your continued deliberate attempts to disrupt this project. You're very aware of the decisions, you've been in the discussions, yet you continue to make this edit despite warnings. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 12:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.


 * User talk:Canterbury Tail - I must say I think blocking me the way you did is bullying behavior. “Ireland (state)” is linked to the article on Ireland. If you object to it being so linked, why don’t you raise it with whomever created the link? I’ve simply used a link that already exists. You’ve said that it’s ‘disruptive’ of me to change a reference from “Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland” to “Taoiseach of Ireland” (his constitutional title). But there’s no rule that the Taoiseach mustn’t be described in accordance with his constitutional title. There’s no point in being drawn into a tedious discussion about all this. Readers can judge if that is disruptive or not. Frenchmalawi (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * No, it's disruptive for you to continue going around Wikipedia changing direct links to Republic of Ireland to be links to the redirect Ireland (state) and you are aware of this. You've been told to stop by myself and others in the various conversations on the talk pages where you've tried to get your preferred Ireland (state) moves made and failed. Deliberately changing a direct article link to a hidden redirect back to the original article is pretty much the definition of disruptive editing, especially when it's to support your viewpoint and is pointy. If you continue to do you you will be blocked. 13:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

signing your posts
See Talk:Tilde. Or you could just click the squiggle on the edit line above (after B I). Hope that works. --Red King (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I read it about 3 times. Pressed shift and then random buttons. No result. Double Dutch for a Luddite like me. I did use to know how to do the tildas. It never used to be a problem. Frenchmalawi (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Northern Territories of the Gold Coast (British protectorate)
Looking at Northern Territories of the Gold Coast (British protectorate) and Gold Coast (British colony), as you suggested, some of the information is different. I don't have enough historical knowledge of the region and legislation etc to do anything about it but if, as you say "Of course, the two are the same thing", then the best thing would be to add banners for the Merging process and start the discussion so that others, more knowledge about the topic thean I am, can discuss.&mdash; Rod talk 06:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, someone else might get involved. Thanks for looking into it. Frenchmalawi (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I’ve never suggested that NTGC (BP) is the same thing as GC (CC). I’ve suggested that the current use of the name NTGC as a re-direct to GC (CC) should end. Frenchmalawi (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Solomon Islands, from protectorate to dominion to independent Commonwealth realm
For information: Qexigator (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to say how good it is to see your improvements to that article. Qexigator (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh thanks Qexigator... usually I only get criticism! There does seem to be a little more latitude to make positive contributions to articles concerning less high profile countries without getting totally bogged down in Wiki-politics-wars. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> 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) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> 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) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)