User talk:Francish7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
Just following how old RMs closed. I was going to say anyway (the above is coincidence) that the way you responded was exemplary. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Oooo! For me? Thank you! Francis Hannaway (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Francish7. You have new messages at Talk:Middlesbrough.
Message added 10:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Francis - can you help please? Ta! DBaK (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library![edit]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
Hi Francish7! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Move of Diocese of Chester[edit]

Hello. I noticed you moved the above article. I'm interested in whether you did this as some greater decision about naming of such things, of which I am obviously unaware, or whether it was one done on your own initiative? Has it been made to make the naming convention consistent across other UK dioceses in the CoE? Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi - this is to make a consistent naming convention for Christianity based pages. Although the naming of CoE dioceses has a conventional naming procedure prejudicial to its established position in England, this does not comply with an international perspective of equal status to all denominations on Wikipedia. With this in mind, naming of all denominations should be stated in the page title. Francis Hannaway (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, but it doesn't really answer the question of whether you are doing it by yourself, or whether it has been discussed and decided upon elsewhere and you are merely implementing an explicit decision made in another place.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you - this is not taking place by action of a Bot - but through different editors. Check through editing history to see who is making these changes. Best wishes Francis Hannaway (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
(e/c) Sorry. I ought to have added that I'm not wishing to argue with you, I just want to know if there is mileage in being a bit more active inb making a consistent approach: for example Diocese of Leeds gives a disambiguation page, in which case Diocese of Chester might be a redirection (because there is no Roman Catholic Diocese of Chester), just as has happened with Diocese of Manchester. What do you think? It might help people unaware of these issues to find the correct pages.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Any help would be great! Roman Catholic dioceses tend to be stated as such ... but to be consistent, each denomination should have its own nominal adjective of Anglican, Methodist , etc. The situation is most pertinent in England because of the CoE's position as the "established" denomination. From an international perspective, for Wikipedia, it is best to be have a view which is consistent across the English speaking world - which includes countries for which Anglicanism is not the "established" denomination. Best wishes Francis Hannaway (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

(conflict) Stop, stop, STOP! Church of England dioceses which have no counterparts do not need disambiguating! Their names do not involve the word Anglican because they do not need to – they are established in the land in which they exist. If you want to change Wikipedia policy, then start a discussion. Until then, kindly desist. DBD 22:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This has woried me about all this. The actual name of the one I know something about is Diocese of Chester, and I think that needs to be somewhere searchable on wikipedia. Perhaps we should not force a unilateral change without discussion, which is why I was asking about the source of the changes. It seems to me now, that the changes need to be, at least, put on hold until the matter is discussed by others and a consensus is achieved.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The search process is taken into account. Try searching for any Anglican Diocese - it will appear. The Leed one is an exception because the Anglican one doesn't exist yet. Francis Hannaway (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You have been asked to stop and to discuss. Your continued non-compliance will only get you a ban. If you absolutely must continue your vandalism now, then be my guest – I would much rather wait 'til the morning and clean up all of your mess in one convenient purge. DBD 23:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE stop edit warring back ... you were bold, you got reverted, now ... you discuss rather than redo the move. It's driving my watchlist nuts. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) DBD, whatever you think of Francis's edits please do not misuse the term "vandalism" like that. Please have a look at the definitions of vandalism in the first line of WP:VAND and also at the explanation of what is not vandalism at WP:NOTVAND. When you do, you will realize that vandalism is not "edits with which I disagree'; indeed it is not even "edits which I think are completely bl**dy stupid"; it has a tight definition, which Francis's behaviour does not in any way resemble. Francis has never committed an act of vandalism on this encyclopaedia and never will; to wrongly accuse someone of vandalism is offensive and foolish; you should strike through your remark and apologize. I hope this helps. With thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I really am not happy now about all of this after looking into it. I originally asked whether the changes had been decided upon somewhere else, rather than being done single-handedly by a single editor's initiative, and the reply I got was "Thank you - this is not taking place by action of a Bot - but through different editors. Check through editing history to see who is making these changes. ". However, on looking at the move logs for such dioceses, I see that this was a lie, because almost all the moves have been done by this talk page's editor. So, my direct message to this editor now is this: given that you lied to a direct question from me, and I am an administrator, then unless you stop, *I* will take steps to issue you with a ban.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm am SHOCKED that you describe my very clear statements as a lie, and would be very pleased to have you retract that accusation. There are other editors clarifying pages about Anglican dioceses - just look at edit histories and you will see them. Which part do you think was a lie ... I can only tell the truth. Francis Hannaway (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
You claimed that others were making these changes, but I can see that in your edit history, you have made many changes to such articles, and not much evidence of anyone else making these changes. If you wish me to, I will withdraw the word "lie", but will add that you were less than complate in your description of what was being done, since you are the main instigator of changes at the moment, as far as I can see.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
IMHO, it would be sufficient to add (Anglican) after "Church of England" in the lede section of each article. I can accept that not everyone would know that CofE means Anglican, so would happily agree to that clarification. Most of all matey, I'd be quite happy to have a reasonable discussion with you about why you ought not to have made these edits (let alone continued once reverted and called out!) DBD 23:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I quite agree.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Many of these dioceses you have moved were originally established as Roman Catholic dioceses which at the Reformation they became Anglican ones. To call them by either denomination would be wrong. The other dioceses do not need to be disambiguated because there are no another dioceses of a different denomination with the same name. Making a one off bold move may be acceptable, but making mass moves is not. You need to discuss this with other editors and see if a consensus can be reached. – Scrivener-uki (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Francish7 A lot of people put a lot of effort into making the Anglican pages on Wikipedia as good as they can be. Please join us in working collaboratively to gain a consensus as to how unique diocese names are recorded Bashereyre (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Common name[edit]

Hi Frank. I see you've removed "Roman Catholic" from the bolded names in three dioceses' ledes. In your edit summary you dismiss the inclusion of "Roman Catholic" as unnecessary disambiguation. I have un-done these edits because your assumption is incorrect – this is not disambiguation at all. Rather, each diocese is overwhelmingly known as "Roman Catholic Diocese of ..." – i.e. that is its WP:COMMONNAME:

(In fact, both Middlesbro and Hexham's official websites loudly proclaim "Roman Catholic Diocese of ..." – and Hallam's prominently features "Catholic Diocese of Hallam.") DBD 14:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


Hi Francish7. Could you please make your proposed changes to the lead of the article on the talk page first, to see if consensus exists. The material is rather controversial. Thanks. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 12:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber[edit]

Good day, Francish7. I undid your recent contributions to the article on Justin Bieber because they seem to be passing judgement on the subject rather than simply stating facts, backed by citations. I realise your edits are in good faith and the subject's behaviour attracts huge media coverage, but we should surely refrain from expressing an opinion not attributed to a reputable source.

Kind regards

Guffydrawers (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ormesby 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Architects Kitching & Co of [[Middlesbrough]] designed both rows in the fashionable [[Arts and Crafts Movement|Arts and Crafts Vernacular style.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Leith, North Dakota[edit]

Hi-the North Dakota law regulates what is a city in that state no matter how big or small the community is. There is nothing in North Dakota state law about hamlets in that state. Please take your concerns to the Leith, North Dakota talk page-thanks-01:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Redcar and Cleveland[edit]

The unitary authority refers to the council, therefore the LGD with the unitary council is known as a unitary authority area. This term is not interchangeable and is the standard phrase used on most of the unitary authority area articles, in the lead. Would you revert your revert? Rcsprinter123 (lecture) @ 14:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I must say I've never heard of - but you seem to know ... Francis Hannaway (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Leeds meetup[edit]

Hello! I don't know if you're aware but there is a wikimedia meet up in Leeds this Saturday (14 June) if you're interested. Hopefully you can make it. Regards IJA (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Berwick Hills, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Park End (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) 08:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

William M. Branham article[edit]

I saw your comment re bias in the article on William Branham.

I have done a lot of research on the subject of William Branham and agree with your comments. I would certainly be interested in helping out with improving this article if you are so inclined. Taxee (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Taxee! Thank you for your kind message. I'm very pleased to know that you are interested in making the Branham article more balanced. I've just looked back over the talk page and most of the POV support comes from a Branhamist groupie called Rev107. Yes there's lots out there to make the article more balanced. My main concerns are that William Branham preyed on people from Hicksville, in the days when things weren't so easily verifiable. Also, he made himself into a kind of deity. He used selective, and often discredited theology - dipping in and outof the development of the main Christian church. His movement continues to hoodwink people in developing countries - which is where my experience of his sect comes from. Unfortunately, because of other commitments, I will not be able to spend much time on this project - but I would be very pleased if you and other editors could be bold yet not reckless in making things clearer for this article. I will be able to see what you are doing from time to time and share my opinion. Best of luck with it! Francis Hannaway (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Francis! I am making a couple of edits to the article but may need your help if they are reverted by the Branham follower that stands guard over the page. Taxee (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HIV/AIDS in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Leuven. 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) 09:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carey Mulligan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page War Child. 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) 00:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)