| Revision as of 15:54, 27 October 2006 editStevewk (talk | contribs)988 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:44, 29 October 2006 edit undoYummifruitbat (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,057 edits Request for Comment at Talk:RepublicNext edit → | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
| == Watch your tail, Schonkster == | == Watch your tail, Schonkster == | ||
| *you've once again been reported to YFB and Admin. central for restarting your edit war and continuing to harrass me. You can blow smoke, but you cant hide that false 3R report you intentionally filed. ] 15:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | *you've once again been reported to YFB and Admin. central for restarting your edit war and continuing to harrass me. You can blow smoke, but you cant hide that false 3R report you intentionally filed. ] 15:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == Request for Comment at ] == | |||
| I've opened an RfC per Durova's suggestion. Please add your statement. --] ] 00:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:44, 29 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)
List of legendary kings of Britain
I notice you've put a fiction tag on the list of legendary kings of Britain. Looking at the article I think it could be better written, but it seems pretty clear that the list is not historical in the slightest and comes from literary and legendary sources. I also don't see any problem with articles about historical figures also mentioning legendary traditions associated with them, so long as the history and legend are kept clearly separated - as I've tried to do with several of the historical figures who appear in the list. Could you please explain where you think there's a problem distinguishing fact from fiction? --Nicknack009 23:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
You've been reported to Misplaced Pages for Official Harrassment of Stevewk 16:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC) and for violation of the 3-revert rule. further instances of harrassment or violations of the 3-revert rule will result in your being BLOCKED from editing.
Seen it yet? It's really good.
Stevewk 01:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Republic edit war
Please see my comments at Talk:Republic --YFB ¿ 17:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Watch your tail, Schonkster
- you've once again been reported to YFB and Admin. central for restarting your edit war and continuing to harrass me. You can blow smoke, but you cant hide that false 3R report you intentionally filed. Stevewk 15:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Request for Comment at Talk:Republic
I've opened an RfC per Durova's suggestion. Please add your statement. --YFB ¿ 00:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)