| Revision as of 16:43, 19 October 2006 editStevewk (talk | contribs)988 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:51, 21 October 2006 edit undoStevewk (talk | contribs)988 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| You appear to be in violation of the very important official rule known as RFA Cliche #1. Would you like some help in remedying that? ] 15:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | You appear to be in violation of the very important official rule known as RFA Cliche #1. Would you like some help in remedying that? ] 15:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *<grin> I meant ]. ] 15:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | *<grin> I meant ]. ] | ||
| 15:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Indeed, my point was that while you're not an admin, you do behave like one, and hence my offer to nominate you. I do not believe adminship is (or should be) limited to vandal fighters; rather, anyone with reasonable experience and judgment could be one. Indeed, the three basic questions are (1) what are you going to work on (policy sounds like a reasonable answer); (2) what part of your earlier work are you proud of; and (3) how did you handle yourself in conflict (it is nearly inevitable to have been in conflict, and I've seen people who consider a lack of any conflict a lack of experience). For reference, I had done zero vandal fighting before I was adminned, and very little since. | **Indeed, my point was that while you're not an admin, you do behave like one, and hence my offer to nominate you. I do not believe adminship is (or should be) limited to vandal fighters; rather, anyone with reasonable experience and judgment could be one. Indeed, the three basic questions are (1) what are you going to work on (policy sounds like a reasonable answer); (2) what part of your earlier work are you proud of; and (3) how did you handle yourself in conflict (it is nearly inevitable to have been in conflict, and I've seen people who consider a lack of any conflict a lack of experience). For reference, I had done zero vandal fighting before I was adminned, and very little since. | ||
| **Anyway of course the decision is yours; but you would be a valuable addition to the mop mob, and your chances are better than you estimate. Yours, ] 16:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | **Anyway of course the decision is yours; but you would be a valuable addition to the mop mob, and your chances are better than you estimate. Yours, ] 16:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 27: | Line 28: | ||
| * hey, hey, c'mon. if the Roman Republic had dictators which the Roman senate could not overrule, then you're correct, but thats not the case. the American founders would not have touted the virtues of the Roman Republic so highly if that had been the case. you're just mistaken on this. i'll be taking it to Wiki. ] 16:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | * hey, hey, c'mon. if the Roman Republic had dictators which the Roman senate could not overrule, then you're correct, but thats not the case. the American founders would not have touted the virtues of the Roman Republic so highly if that had been the case. you're just mistaken on this. i'll be taking it to Wiki. ] 16:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == Three revert rule on ] == | |||
| *Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in ]. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages under the ], which states that nobody may ] a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the ''effect'' of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ] 15:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *if you're a admin, i dont know why you havent stated it so far, so i'm going to assume you're not. the talk on this page, shows that you're simply intent on making sure i dont get the edit. so, i'm going to go ahead and report this to someone who i know is an admin. in the meantime, i'm restoring the template warning from before, and as much as i know you dont want to believe the rules apply to you, we'll see. ] 15:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:51, 21 October 2006
Communications in Dutch: please see User talk:Francis Schonken/Dutch
Overleg in het nederlands: op User talk:Francis Schonken/Dutch a.u.b.
Victionarium → User talk:Francis Schonken/Latinus
Archives: Archive 01 - Archive 02
Oh noes!
You appear to be in violation of the very important official rule known as RFA Cliche #1. Would you like some help in remedying that? >Radiant< 15:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
15:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, my point was that while you're not an admin, you do behave like one, and hence my offer to nominate you. I do not believe adminship is (or should be) limited to vandal fighters; rather, anyone with reasonable experience and judgment could be one. Indeed, the three basic questions are (1) what are you going to work on (policy sounds like a reasonable answer); (2) what part of your earlier work are you proud of; and (3) how did you handle yourself in conflict (it is nearly inevitable to have been in conflict, and I've seen people who consider a lack of any conflict a lack of experience). For reference, I had done zero vandal fighting before I was adminned, and very little since.
- Anyway of course the decision is yours; but you would be a valuable addition to the mop mob, and your chances are better than you estimate. Yours, >Radiant< 16:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
List of LGB people/A-E
Why does the fact that it is a daughter article mean it can't have information? I can certainly add the stuff I added to all the other articles as well, if you wish, but why should it be deleted? Dev920 (Tory?) 21:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have added the same information to all the split pages. Have you seen my proposal on the main talkpage about converting the lists to tables? Dev920 (Tory?) 21:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
"dont overdue non-standard use"
- the "non-standard use" is noted in the phrase, "not necessarily." John Adams' and political scientists in general well recognize that under a constitutional monarchy, the king is no more or less power-capable than a President. sorry, i cant apologize for the injection of some sophistication. you and the other guy are simply not aware of this. i believe there is a 3-reversion rule on wiki, this is my second, and so...reverted. Stevewk 16:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- check my partial reversion. you might find it acceptable. Stevewk 16:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- hey, hey, c'mon. if the Roman Republic had dictators which the Roman senate could not overrule, then you're correct, but thats not the case. the American founders would not have touted the virtues of the Roman Republic so highly if that had been the case. you're just mistaken on this. i'll be taking it to Wiki. Stevewk 16:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Three revert rule on Republic
- Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Republic. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Stevewk 15:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- if you're a admin, i dont know why you havent stated it so far, so i'm going to assume you're not. the talk on this page, shows that you're simply intent on making sure i dont get the edit. so, i'm going to go ahead and report this to someone who i know is an admin. in the meantime, i'm restoring the template warning from before, and as much as i know you dont want to believe the rules apply to you, we'll see. Stevewk 15:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)