This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Reid (talk | contribs) at 02:14, 18 November 2006 (A B C). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:14, 18 November 2006 by John Reid (talk | contribs) (A B C)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)
MfD's on User:X/Title pages
Could you please make it all one MfD page - it will save arguments/discussion, which considering they are all identical, will be similar, being spread over three pages. If you do this, just tag two of them with {{db-author}}, and add the others to the header of the one that stays. I would suggest the one to be merged into would be User:1ne, is it was the original. Daniel.Bryant 08:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Don't worry - I did it for you. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 09:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Notability (web)
This is concerning http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Notability_%28web%29. You rverted and refered to http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:WOTTA. I understand that not all my edits were proper names, but why did you not simply change those specific ones rather than rverting the entire article? I will fix those that were not proper names if you do not have an issue with it. Please reply on my talk page. Thank you. FactsOnly 08:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
You reverted again. Please reply on my talk page with your concerns. FactsOnly 08:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Are you going to reply? FactsOnly 08:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I replied on Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (web), so if you care, you may reply.FactsOnly 09:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
You may delete this section if you wish as I believe we have come to a mutual understanding, though I may be incorrect. FactsOnly 09:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Misplaced Pages:Notability (web). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Francis Schonken 09:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
You must be mistaken. You are the one who is undoing my edits, and may be blocked for that if you continue. The previous revision you want, prior to my edit, will not be achieve by you reverting every change I make. If you revert me once more, I will have to contact an admin. Thank you. FactsOnly 09:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Notability (web)
As you've probably noticed I've protected this page for the time being. I find the differences between both versions rather minor and hardly worth edit warring over. I believe you both equally guilty of edit warring, and have no intention of blocking either of you. My recommendation would be to drop a note on e.g. WP:3O to get a third opinion; other than that, have a nice cup of WP:TEA and happy editing. >Radiant< 12:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Needless to say the protection is not permanent, so in the near future you'll be able to "just rework it". I do not think asking a third opinion is premature if a revert war is going on. Alternatively, either one of you could have decided to not revert and instead wait a couple of hours. >Radiant< 13:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
RfC for Rrfayette
Hi. I have filed an RfC about the conduct of Rrfayette (talk · contribs). Since I mentioned you as one of the editors who have tried unsuccessfully to talk some sense into him, I thought you'd appreciate the info and perhaps would be able to give your two cents on the subject at . Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 06:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Copyrights
Hi. You reverted my post to a post that states: External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us. If the site in question is making fair use of the material, linking is fine.
The reason you gave is that policy first needs to be agreed upon by the community and you also wrote "Don't link to copyvio, that's all." This reasoning was not placed on the talk page.
The community has not agreed upon the reversion that you left on the Misplaced Pages:Copyrights. In addition, copyvio makes no mention of linking to copyvio as being a copyright violation. When you say 'Don't link to copyvio, that's all' as Misplaced Pages policy, you are talking about removing a good 20% or more of the external links in the 1,000,000+ articles on Misplaced Pages. If the policy remains as you propose (that linking to a copyright infringing site is contributory infringement), the extra administrative overhead is needed to protect Misplaced Pages and to protect the Misplaced Pages editors. What is really going on is people are sneeking around deleting entire references from articles as part of disrupting Misplaced Pages and justifying their nefarious actions on the policy to which you reverted the Misplaced Pages:Copyrights article. -- Jreferee 06:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
A B C
Look, what's your problem? Of course there isn't any consensus about source grading; it's a new idea. It's not a policy proposal; nothing is mandated. It's just a toolbox. There's nothing to argue about. Nor is there really anything to discuss; you may think it won't work but you can't prove it. You can either try it and see or you can wait while other people try it and see. After it's been used for a little while, perhaps fixed and tweaked, then there's plenty of room to comment. Why are you trying to hold a debate in edit summary or by tag warring? John Reid ° 02:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)