User talk:Francis Schonken/Archive 03

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?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant this.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  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,  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Francis_Schonken_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29:_knowingly_filing_a_false_3RR.2Fsock_puppet_report

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, 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 [ T · C ] 08:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't worry - I did it for you. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 09:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (web)
This is concerning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28web%29. You rverted and refered to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 Wikipedia 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia 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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC for Rrfayette
Hi. I have filed an RfC about the conduct of. 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 Pascal.Tesson 06:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia policy, you are talking about removing a good 20% or more of the external links in the 1,000,000+ articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia and to protect the Wikipedia editors. What is really going on is people are sneeking around deleting entire references from articles as part of disrupting Wikipedia and justifying their nefarious actions on the policy to which you reverted the 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)

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess
Dear Francis—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 04:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ephemeral
It means passing, fleeting, here-today-gone-tomorrow, impermanent. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The idea being that, if the source isn't there tomorrow for someone to check, then it isn't really verifiable, right? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there's a better way to phrase what I was trying to say there. I certainly wasn't trying to claim that WP is a crystal ball, or anything like that.  The idea is that ephemeral sources, like websites that just leave stories up for a week and then take them down, aren't good sources.  IF we know ahead of time that a source is of that nature, then we aren't going to base an article on it, right?  I'm not married to the particular wording - I'm sure we'll figure out the right way to say everything. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

de la Rochefoucauld
Antoine de la Rochefoucauld lived centuries after the de La Rochefoucauld's you mention and did not capitalize the "L" nor do sources list him as doing so. In this case, consistancy equals inaccuracy. See: Museum of Fine Arts Boston The only sourses which use capital L are those that copied the error from Wikipedia. House of Scandal 19:11, 15 December 2006

The bad sourses I referred to are online sources. The sourses I quote are Museum of Fine Arts, Boston and Christy's in London. I am neither a vandal nor an idiot and I did nothing to justify you being rude to me. You are not an example of how Wikipedians should behave or interact. House of Scandal 19:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you have remembered how we are supposed to treat each other here, we can keep it "L" and I'll redirect the other page. To treat a historical person's name like a password (i.e. case sensative, one letter wrong and it doesn't work) is an error based on the modern mindset. House of Scandal 20:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ref code
Thank you very much for fixing the code and for explaining to me.--Berig 11:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A great edit at Haakon the Red. I prefer your version to my own.--Berig 10:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Refs
I don't see why you want the whole texts from the articles of Nationalencyklopedin. It is the most excessive demand for references I have ever seen on WP. If you assume bad faith on the part of the one who provides the references, you should assume bad faith concerning the whole texts as well. If you seriously doubt my references, I recommend that you go to a large library where they have the encyclopedia and verify yourself or subscribe to Nationalencyklopedin online. Since you are Dutch you should understand the Swedish text quite well.--Berig 20:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I still think that your demands are a bit over the top. Not even featured articles do this.--Berig 08:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am just surprised that an obscure little king about whom there is so little documentation that there will never be an FA on him should need such excessive referencing.--Berig 10:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:Overcategorization
I wanted to comment on what you said at WP:VPP without Jeff interfering. As is, WP:OC serves, if anything, to enshrine the uselessness of specific sets of categories that comes up too frequently at WP:CFD, and to avoid lengthy repeated arguments and the hunting down of numerous precedents. It is a spur of Categorization in the same way Manual of Style (abbreviations) is a spur of Manual of style. It is separated out of the simple fact that its inclusion there would lead to a needless cluttering of the page. Circeus 22:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Categorisation of people
Please explain the reasons for your disapproval of my text. I have answered all the queries that have been raised, leaving your persistent reversions as the only stumbling block. You say that it is not consensus, but only three people have taken part in the discussion, one of whom has not responded with any criticism since the drafting of the new text. I cannot speak on his/her behalf, but he/she seems to be satisfied. Your complaint that it is "not an improvement" is impossible to address without further details, and is, in my opinion, wrong. The previous text was confusing, poorly formatted and ill-written; mine has corrected several glaring errors. You have mentioned "obvious" typos, errors and so on, but have not provided any examples of what these might be (or at least none that I have not corrected since). I have twice asked on the talk page for details of problems, under the assumption that if none were forthcoming, then there would be no problems with the text, but you keep reverting despite not having suggested any grounds for improvement on the talk page. I would prefer it if you would work with me to improve the text; wholesale reversion is not constructive. This all makes it very difficult for someone like me who is trying to make things better. Like I say, all I'm asking for is a bit more detail. --Stemonitis 13:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still waiting for details of what is supposed to be wrong with my replacement text. Apart from yourself, there is consensus. As far as I can see, I have dealt with every concern that has been raised, and have used the suggestions that have been made to improve the text until it was in a state that everyone could be happy with. Yet you continue to revert without any further information about why you are doing so. Since I changed the draft, you have come up with not a single valid criticism of it. Please either do so, or desist from reverting. We all appreciate the work you have put into the guideline in the past, but now it has been improved, and you should allow that. I am also a little irked by this one-way conversation. I have tried by various means to engage you in discussion about the draft, but the only input I get is in terse edit summaries of reversion. This is not the most helpful way of contributing, by any means. --Stemonitis 01:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Schnabel about Prem Rawat
I added in the comparison with Bhagwan/Rajneesh in the article Prem Rawat. You are right that the comparison should have been in the article, though I personally also think that Rawat is intellectually unremarkable not just compared to Rajneesh, but also in an absolute manner. Everbody involved (including current followers and Maharaji himself) will agree that his strong point was never intellectually sophisticated teachings. Andries 15:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Mael-Num
You may want to take a look at what this user is saying about you here: Suspected_sock_puppets ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Phantiswiki
Hi, re. your edit to Giorgios Siantos, it's true that the copyright status of Phantiswiki is not quite as clearly expressed as here on WP, but their General Disclaimer page does mention it being under GFDL. To my mind, that sounds sufficient. As for it not being a RS and how then to best link to it, see the thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Copying articles from external wikis. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Events naming convention
I would have appreciated seeing some discussion from you on the talk page, where I justified my addition, before you reverted it. This convention has been in general use, and is now adopted by the related WikiProject, Disaster management. Another editor stuck it in the related section on the numbers convention, and I copied the text from there not to "cherry pick" but merely to have consistency across the applicable guidelines. Akradecki 19:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Events naming convention (II)
I see you made this update, possibly based on what I said on the talk page. Thanks for that. Would you possibly be able to discuss your revert here on the talk page? Your edit sumary refers to several sections at the main talk page for naming conventions, but I'm not entirely clear what you were saying there, if I'm honest. Could we start the conversation again at the events naming convention talk page, or shall I copy stuff over to that talk page from the other talk page? I don't really want to do the latter, as I might end up misrepresenting what you are saying. Thanks. Carcharoth 22:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NAME Nutshell
You reverted my edits to the nutshell WP:NAME twice--please refer to WP:RV. You seem to object to the concept of a change, rather than the content of the change. You claim that consensus is required, but this is not possible if you simply revert and do not participate in discussion. The changes did not appreciably change the meaning or intent, IMHO, but convey essentially the same information with a higher signal to noise ratio. See also the discussion on Template_talk:Nutshell, then please explain why a revert was justified, rather than a re-edit on Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions Dhaluza 11:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please respect WP:3RR and address changes made in good faith on their individual merits. Dhaluza 21:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I see you also reverted the nut at WP:NPOV. I would appreciate your comments on that action in Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view as well. Dhaluza 11:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Proud to be your sock puppet
I came here to leave you a note to compliment you on your even handed editing and respect for Wiki and saw Jossi's remark headed "Mael-Num". But now I'm going to say "I would be proud to be your sock puppet".Momento 09:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Weakening of WP:V
This is disgusting that two or three editors can claim "community consensus" and weaken the policy. I have reverted it. CyberAnth 02:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven
Thought you might like to know: I submitted a Featured List Nomination for this list, of which you seem to be a major author. I did some tinkering around the edges (lead, references, section headers, etc.) first. Cheers! &mdash;Turangalila talk 01:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:LISTS
Hi Francis. If you recall we had a vigorous debate last year about Lists in WP. I have added some wording that I feel explain the application of WP:NPOV to lists. Given that you were quite involved in these discussions then, maybe you would be interested in discussing the merits of that wording. See Wikipedia_talk:List_guideline. 22:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Tarnation pattern1 800x600.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Tarnation pattern1 800x600.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hipparchus (disambiguation)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Hipparchus (disambiguation), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Hipparchus (disambiguation) fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: a redundant redirect, since nothing links here and nobody will search for the full name To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Hipparchus (disambiguation), please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Hipparchus (disambiguation) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 05:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Res publica
A "" template has been added to the article Res publica, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. WHEELER 02:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Relevance drafts ready for editing/comments
Hi Francis,

Father Goose and I (WikiLen) have developed competing versions for a possible guideline on relevancy. I note you have previous participated at this project. Your contributions would be timely now. My draft is the current proposed guideline only because I made mine after Father Goose did his. This is not to suggest either version is favored. Thanks for your interest... —WikiLen 03:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Draft REL2 REL2.1 by Father Goose
 * Draft REL3 by WikiLen

Wikipedians/Belgium
I thought you would be interested to know about that page's MfD nomination, if you aren't already aware. — The Storm Surfer 01:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Call for editor participation at Relevance
Hi Francis Schonken,

Relevance requests your presence — see, "Call for editor participation" at the talk page. —WikiLen 17:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Bill Gates for president
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Bill Gates for president, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Bill Gates for president is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Bill Gates for president, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 02:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Bill Gates for President
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Bill Gates for President, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Bill Gates for President is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Bill Gates for President, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 02:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Sejny quote
Francis, I respectfully disagree that the larger quote seems ok. It is not ok per WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. It is not something that needs to be described in detail in the article about the city (it is already described in detail at Sejny Uprising). See my arguments at talk.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A request
Hello Francis Schonken, your input in Sejny article was very helpful. You see similar situation occurred and in this article, with the same practice of infomation removal. etc. Could you please see the discussion here and provide your comments on this issue? I would be very grateful to you. M.K. 12:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents lists
Howdy. Just a pointer to 2 discussion threads that are ongoing, concerning the contents lists you so boldly moved today! There are a few more details in this recent thread at User talk:Dbachmann, in particular my comment 3rd-from-last beginning "Everybody except ...". Hope that helps. --Quiddity 18:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Contents which I'd asked for feedback for, from the Pump, Mailing list, ANI, individual admins, and an RfC (policy).
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists of basic topics.

Contents lists
Please refrain from moving any more contents system pages from the main namespace, such as Lists of mathematics topics (Wikipedia's math-related table of contents) until the contradiction between WP:LISTS and WP:ASR is resolved.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 07:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That move was too bold. You should really have discussed such a massive move before implementing it. The discussion as to whether they violate ASR is at Wikipedia talk:Lists. Please move them back until a consensus has been reached. The Transhumanist 22:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Groupe des six
Category:Groupe des six, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Cgingold (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Mathematics/Lists
I moved to Lists of mathematics topics to Portal:Mathematics/Lists. Originally I closed the request as no consensus, but on looking at the discussion at the contents talk page, it seems that there probably is. Can you have a look at the links? I'm not sure whether we should leave them through the redirect or change them to a direct link so readers see it's a portal page. Let me know and I'll clean up as necessary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Index lists
Hi. I've removed all mention of a new namespace, including your comments responding to it, (because it was only serving as a distraction, thanks to your good comments). I hope that is acceptable, and I invite you to further clarify/refactor your comments there, so that I can paste the whole thread to VPP this evening. I'm hoping for it to be as clear as possible first. Sound good? Reply here is fine. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thread moved to the Pump: Village pump (policy). Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

“On the Origin of Species”
Please do not move the page.
 * Charles Darwin named it “On the Origin of Species”, lets not try to change history.
 * The book was published in 1859. In the 1850s, 60s, up to the mid 70s it always had “On”.
 * Harvard University Press also published it with “On”.
 * Even current reprints use “On the Origin of Species”, ISBN-10: 0674637526.
 * Also “On the Origin of Species” ISBN-10: 0486450066
 * Also “On the Origin of Species” ISBN-10: 1592242863
 * Also “On the Origin of Species” ISBN-10: 1551113376
 * Also “On the Origin of Species” ISBN-10: 1434616851
 * Also “On the Origin of Species” ASIN: B000JML90Y
 * Also “On the Origin of Species” ASIN: B00079PSPG
 * The photograph on the main page also says "On the Origin of Species".
 * Encyclopedia Britannica also uses “On the Origin of Species”.
 * Almost every college, university and high school uses "On the Origin of Species".
 * Some businessman decided to take off the “On” over a decade after the book was published so he could make a quick buck, why fall into his trap??--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is clear you have more than one user name. Maybe I should ask for an IP address verification. I have given all the proof that is needed. If your bulling continues, I will report you to wiki. Your defense is you just don't like it, mine is backed by documentation.--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Info needed
Hi. Can you help me understand what is wrong with adding suggested guidelines to the Criticism essay? I did read it, and it didnt seem to contain any guidance that would help editors of the many "Criticism of.." articles get a feel for what is expected in those articles. Did I miss some issue/point in that essay? Noleander 17:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, what did you mean when you said "we have a separate page on this, which never got beyond "essay" stage. If you want a guideline on this, improve that page, and re-propose as guideline."?  I think I did just what you suggested?  Noleander 17:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits on WP:V
I really liked that last bit about using multiple reliable sources - when something is controversial, this can make quite a difference. Its possible for one source to err or be misunderstood; its unlikely that multiple high quality sources would all make the same mistake. Nice editing :) Shell babelfish 20:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP Comment
Thank you for your suggestion on Jimbo's talk page re: a request I had to clarify the policy on BLP so that the importance of not having undue weight is made clear. I am involved in a discussion on the Bio of Peter Yarrow where a similar issue has arisen. Could you please include your thoughts at the following request for comment: Talk:Peter Yarrow#RfC: Conviction and pardon.

I am trying to protect this subject from having a 37 year old incident take precedence in what is supposed to be a thoughtful and complete bio of the man. We would welcome your honest input on the subject. Thank you --Jkp212 (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

William of Orange
"I'm a Dutch speaker myself, living in Belgium:" Ah that explains why you don't know who William of Orange is ;-) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Usertalk:Jimbo Wales
Why have you reverted my edit, which was to remove text only a handful of users on this website can read from a central talkpage?  Lra drama 13:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You may also want to note that the official policy talks only about English usage on this website: Manual of Style (spelling).  Lra drama 13:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Infact, I have reverted it back, per Talk page guidelines.  Lra drama 13:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:"La Reine Margot" example
Template:"La Reine Margot" example has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Richard Ω6  12  22:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk page for help modifying policies
heya, I was just about to use the talk page of Wikipedia_talk:How_to_contribute_to_Wikipedia_guidance to answer a question in the edit summaries, and then noticed it was a copy of the whole mess from the help page. Perhaps that particular mess could be left at the old location? That would be nice :-)

As to why not use the proposal process? Well, the proposal process is slow, inefficient, and arguably does not work at all. You would think that with the amount of heat it puts out, it must have some merit, but when we did the numbers, it produced surprisingly little light, even less than we anticipated. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Double
Note under Requests_for_arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Workshop a rename had already been suggested. Might send your support up there. Marskell (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Jossi
I noticed your note to Jossi being reverted with an accusation that it was trolling. I am not sure if your accusations of admin abuse are true, or if Jossi's accusations of trolling are true, or both. But I would like to get to the bottom of it. Since your message to Jossi was ignored, I will listen to your concerns. Please be specific in why you think there was admin abuse, citing relevant policies and diffs and I will look into it. Or if you prefer you can just forget about it.

Peace. 1 != 2 16:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see Jossi has returned the note to the page. Perhaps I am not needed. My services are still available if you wish. 1 != 2 16:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have looked over things and have given my impressions here:, responses welcome. 1 != 2 18:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)/Temp
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)/Temp, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)/Temp provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)/Temp, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Galileo not "put to death"
You wrote in a comment at Verifiability: "Galileo was right. He couldn't cite RSs. He was put to death."

Most people would not say that Galileo was "put to death".

From Galileo:

"After a period with the friendly Ascanio Piccolomini (the Archbishop of Siena), Galileo was allowed to return to his villa at Arcetri near Florence, where he spent the remainder of his life under house arrest, and where he later became blind. It was while Galileo was under house arrest that he dedicated his time to one of his finest works, Two New Sciences. Here he summarized work he had done some forty years earlier, on the two sciences now called kinematics and strength of materials. This book has received high praise from both Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. As a result of this work, Galileo is often called, the "father of modern physics." Galileo died on 8 January 1642."

Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow
Wow ... it's really amazing how views on wikipedia have changed so much. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 12:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Npov PS Faq
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I just hate reading through pages of ArbCom "comments" to get to the meat ;) I'm lazy.Wjhonson (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment at Wikipedia talk:Content forking
Hi there, I must admit to feeling a little annoyed that, by my reading of your reply on the talk page, you assumed I was trying to change a guideline to give an advantage in a current dispute. I may have been misreading your comment, but this was a good-faith attempt to raise awareness of a conflict between two guidelines. Sorry if I misunderstood what you were meaning. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you re V
God. I shouldn't let myself be sucked into these mini-wars. Marskell (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Criticism
Not sure if you saw this page Talk:Prem_Rawat/criticism but there I tried to document the evolution of the criticism after you merged it into the article a year ago. I suggest that rather than reverting to a much older version, that might lose good edits too, you just pick one version of the criticism and place that section into the current article. What do you think? David D. (Talk) 17:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So you don't mind if I undo your change and add one of the more recent version of the criticism? David D. (Talk) 17:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * replied at my talk page to keep the discussion intact. David D. (Talk) 17:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thousands of edits lost
You have just deleted thousands of edits here. Please consider improving the article rather than dismiss the hard work of editors over a period of more than one year. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I overwrote some intermediate constructive edits in the process too. Are you serious? You deleted sources, hundreds of copyedits, new material, and the hard work of many editors, including non-involved editors. Come and help improve the article instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, the version that overwritten by Francis was based on a complete new rewrite by Rumiton and Momento. They had in their rewrite deleted thousands of edits by many authors. I am disappointed that you feed Francis with information that you know very well to be one-sided. Andries (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you know which version best represents the post GA review? David D. (Talk) 16:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In light of Andries comment here, what you suggest might well be best. My only problem with topic related criticism, which is clearly preferable, is that users such as Rumiton and Momento overtime can easily strip out the topic criticism. Although with more eyes on this article now they are less likely to be able to dominate as before. Interestingly Jossi also put the Prem Rawat article in citizendium. It got some critical response there too David D. (Talk) 17:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that you start to understand why I could no keep Prem Rawat balanced
What was I supposed to do when Momento (and to a lesser extent Rumiton) reverted all my edits on Prem Rawat] and when repeated attempts at dispute resolution failed ? I could not do anything. Andries (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI
reported to WP:ANI/3RR, again. You may wish to weigh in there. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, please see the newer report. Cirt (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat/Jossi Fresco
Hello Francis, thanks for your note. I don’t have an interest in communicating with Jossi Fresco, Momento, or Rumiton anymore, nor am I interested in editing the Rawat articles now or in the future. I’ve been beating my head against that brick wall for years with no success. It’s not worth the aggravation for me. FYI, I posted my comment under Jossi’s “Declaration of Intent,” section on the Rawat talk page because I prefer not to post anything on his user talk page, and I was not trying to be disruptive (that is a frequent accusation by premies of any editors who happen to be former followers). I certainly have never harassed Jossi in any way. I have always condemned that type of behavior on the Prem Rawat Talk Forum.

It’s been quite difficult to try to work with people who hold the strong belief that one is a member of a hate group; that’s a belief that the Prem Rawat cult fosters on it’s various Elan Vital website faqs and amongst each other. They also hold the belief that ex-premies operate as a cabal-type group, which is false and quite laughable. I had no knowledge of the Register article until it was published last week when someone posted a link to it on the Prem Rawat Talk Forum. Jossi’s accusation about people colluding to disrupt the Rawat articles is patently false and sheer fantasy. I do hope that the premie-editors will no longer be allowed to foster the cult's “ex-premies are a hate-group” allegation on Wikipedia, and I also hope that Wikipedia editors and administrators will pay close attention to that particular issue because it's happened a lot on this website. Thanks for your concern, Francis, and best wishes to you -- Cynthia Gracie Sylviecyn (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See my replyAndries (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

3rr report
I have blocked User:Momento per your 3rr report. I consider the interference by an involved admin on that report to be inexcusable. Someone will likely object to my block based on the absurd time delay, but so be it. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible intimidation
\{\{subst:ANI-notice}}
 * Reason: 3RR notification on Reliable sources highly unjust and intimidating, as well as highly disruptive to a constructive solution.
 * Rokus01 (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Frequent violating of BLP
Your unilateral insertion of a clearly unsuitable link into the Prem Rawat article without discussion is disruptive editing. The links are specifically banned by BLP and that has been clearly discussed on the talk page.Momento (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

online Dutch Sources about the DLM and Prem Rawat

 * http://www.bezinningscentrum.nl/teksten/wim/divinelightmission.pdf by Wim Haan
 * Schnabel, Paul. Tussen stigma en charisma: nieuwe religieuze bewegingen en geestelijke volksgezondheid ("Between stigma and charisma: new religious movements and mental health"). Erasmus University Rotterdam, Faculty of Medicine, Ph.D. thesis, 1982. Deventer, Van Loghum Slaterus, ISBN 90-6001-746-3. Chapter II, page 33, Chapter IV page 99, page 101-102, Chapter V, page 142 http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/schn016tuss01_01/index.htm

These are only online since about one year. Andries (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Frequent BLP violations report at Admin noticeboard []
Francis Schonken is repeatedly violating BLP policy on the "Prem Rawat]] article by linking [][][][] to a anonymously written, self published web sites that contains enormous amounts of unsourced OR and such derogatory unsourced claims as Rawat is "an 'alcoholic'" and "Rawat smoked cannabis "four or five nights a week" when in residence at Malibu"[]. If I try to remove this link in accordance with BLP policy that "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link" he threatens me with a 3RR on my talk page despite BLP policy saying "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals." I would appreciate it if Admins will ensure BLP policy is upheld.Momento (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Invading my space
Francis, you have recently posted 4 messages on my talk page, please stop.Momento (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not helpful
This is not helpful, Francis. Let uninvolved admins weigh in unimpeded. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I must say for the record, that I find your behavior at WP:AN, your insistence to refactor a proposal I made, and your lengthy pleadings to be insufferable and most unhelpful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternate account
FYI, I created an alternate account (Will Beback NS) for when I'm using a public Wi-Fi connection in order to minimize the risk of having an admin account compromised. Several other admins (and even regular users) do likewise. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding RfM
A Request for Mediation has been filed on the Waterboarding article concerning the content dispute in the first six words of the article. You have been named as a party and your participation would be appreciated. I believe this is the best approach to an amicable resolution of the dispute. Please indicate your agreement here. Thank you. Neutral Good (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Trying this again
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Waterboarding 2, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Neutral Good (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Uncessary
Your insistence in asking these questions is most unwelcome and unnecessary. I have no intention to disclose anything beyond what I have already disclosed at User:Jossi/Response, User:Jossi/About, and User:Jossi/Disclosure. If I ever edit these articles again and my edits and or behavior warrants further disclosures, you may ask these questions. Otherwise don't. Enough if enough. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you care?
So, let see you refactoring this, which is an obvious violation of WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat 1RR probation
Per the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard, the articles now in category:Prem Rawat are on special 1RR and disruption probation. A notice describing the probation is at talk:Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit war
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. /Slarre (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot Policy
Way back in 2004, you added these lines to the Bot policy and Categorization of people. Over at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Betacommand there is a discussion of what are "certain types of person categories should not be filled or emptied using a bot." Do you remember the criteria and are they something that a Bot could reasonably be expected to interpret?  MBisanz  talk 03:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, do you remember the context to this edit in 2005, ie. why the word emptied was added?  MBisanz  talk 00:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

1RR probation violation

 * 1st
 * 2nd

We do not need the drama of an AN/I report. Please self revert. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The first is not a revert, please concentrate on the merits of the edit, I already self-reverted an error (Hunt, as you indicated, but as I had already discovered myself). --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You have indeed breached 1RR. Per WP:1RR: one-revert rule: If someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it, but discuss it with them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, we do not need the drama. Self-revert, and proceed to fix stuff from there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

1RR 2nd probation violation
Francis Schonken, you have reverted twice in five minutes. Please self revert.Momento (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

AN/I notice
FYI: AN/I notice. Again: 1RR probation which you did not want to be implemented it is now in place and should be respected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat articles, should go to RFAR
In my opinion 1rr, and DR via AN and ANI, and discussion, have failed. Take it to RFAR. Lawrence §  t / e  18:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration
You have been named as a party at Requests_for_arbitration ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Francis, I got your message re: the arbitration. I would like to be listed in the arbitration.  Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Fibonacci
I like your solution to the problem of expressing the golden ratio property of the Fibonacci sequence. However, I was right, and the previous editor was definitely wrong, because he or she expressed the ratio as "dividing any number by the next number in the sequence". This uncontravertibly tends to 0.618, NOT 1.618. Yours is a much better way of expressing it but you were rude and incorrect to say that my edit was wrong. Rachel Pearce (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Footnotes90from"Alexander_Litvinenko_poisoning".png
Thanks for uploading Image:Footnotes90from"Alexander_Litvinenko_poisoning".png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 23:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat history of editing restrictions
With regard to your comment leading the table of editing restrictions here, data on protection prior to the introduction of Special:Log at the end of 2004 can be found at the manual log pages at Protection log. I seem to recall something about protection while looking at one of the very old talk archives so you may find something there. --bainer (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV non negotiable?
Eh? That's a fairly new thing, you know. Stating that it was nn before the foundation existed? Wow. Were you around at the time? Please provide evidence. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If Jimbo said that, he should be taken out and shot. Then again, he's been saying some pretty damnfool things at times, maybe we can just be nice and replace him with someone smarter... which we actually have, come to think of it (note foundation issue #5 ). (With apologies to Jimbo, I know he says pretty wise things, most of the time. Still human though. ;-)


 * Do you recall at what point people started claiming that NPOV had become non-negotiable?


 * IMAO Making things non-negotiable is a recipe for disaster. I figure that either the "non-negotiable" statements go, or consensus goes. If consensus goes, well... ut oh...


 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Essentially beyond debate != non negotiable. (the latter is rather stronger). If you disagree, feel free to edit the foundation issues page, and see how well you do.
 * Note that the change I made earlier today is actually a clarification of an earlier note, which in turn has to do with a foundation-l discussion (which must still be findable somewhere). Earlier revisions of the note are: original revision off-of foundation-l, and my rather less alarming version.  If you disagree with my changes, please feel free to undo them up to the foundation-l point. I would not recommend going further back than that though. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC) I'm not actually responsible for your life though, so feel free to go against that recommendation. Good luck, and sayonara. O:-)

re NPOV wording
that's fine. I just didn't think that "expected" and "non-negotiable" exactly fit together, but that was personal preference. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. transclusion of main article subpages
Francis, you modified my transclusion templates and source texts and left behind you a trail of mess that took a full hour to clean up. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions
Hi Francis. If you have the time, would you please look at my WikiProject template naming question. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

About the anonymous IP troll
Thanks for your help reverting the vandalism. This admin is also helping to deal with the problem. Fnagaton 22:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Evidence presented did not disclose a history of problematic editing, in terms of basic content policy, by Jossi, and the Committee commended Jossi's self-imposed restriction to edit only talk pages for Prem Rawat related articles. Due to a history of incivility and personal attacks surrounding articles related to the Prem Rawat movement, the preexisting community enforced one-revert rule on Prem Rawat and related articles that commenced March 4, 2008, has been superceeded by Arbitration Committee enforced article probation. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Claudia Procula
Hello! I am the guy who expanded the article on Pontius Pilate's wife and I did not appreciate your insulting comments about my work. Please Assume Good Faith and exercise WP:Civility when commenting on the efforts of other people. This was only my second effort for the WikiProject Saints effort, and I plan to expand and improve on that and other articles as my schedule allows. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Francis, thanks for your apology on the talk page. Ecoleetage is a relatively new editor, and is working hard to master adding quality content.  It is worth noting, in his defense, that much of the fluff and pov stuff was already in there, and E did try to add some sourcing and better info (although certainly some guidance is needed in discerning which sources are best, as well as using the language of academia).  For myself, I hope my edit summary did not come off snappy - I certainly appreciate the input and I know that, with a softer touch, E would probably appreciate your help as well. Pastordavid (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And I just noticed some past problems with OR on the page, which make your reaction much more understandable. Pastordavid (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Warning on Disrputive Editing
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, your recent edits on the article relating to Pontius Pilate's wife have been disruptive. Please remember that you do not own articles on Wikipedia and that all users are free to edit articles. Furthermore, you should always assume good faith with regard to other editors and their contributions to the articles. If you have questions or concerns on the contents of this or any article, please raise it in the Talk Page discussions. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time you are being warned about your capricious editing of this article. You should not remove properly referenced materials simply because it doesn't suit your fancy. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort among many editors, and your attempts to erase the work of other people to suit your personal tastes is antithetical to the spirit of this site. I would also strongly recommend that you please build a consensus with the other editors contributing to this article before making vast edits to the text. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please be advised that your actions have been reported: []. I am more than willing to work with you on improving this article, but you cannot just delete text because you don't like it. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note: this is your THIRD warning regarding your inappropriate behavior on this page. A page protection was put on this page solely because of you. I am asking you to cease and desist from harassing other editors and vandalizing their contributions to Wikipedia. This article is not yours exclusively and your recent behavior is not acceptable. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:New Testament people
Using the state option is good out I do not recall how that works.

Can you add some documentations for how to use it to Template:New Testament people? --Carlaude (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--Carlaude (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:FootnotesSmall
Template:FootnotesSmall has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Rockfang (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: horrible formatting
Fair enough - I did not catch those couple of out of place phrases, and I apologize. I absolutely aware that the article needs work - from polishing the prose to improving (not removing) the referencing. However, my reference was not to the prose, but to the wiki-markup. Your wholesale reversions were changing the section header from level 1 headers to level 2 headers; inserted a wikilink into the first occurance of the article title; and removed valid external links. Pastordavid (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In terms of external links, I would call this and this valid external links, and this ought to be used as a ref, but until it gets worked in there's no harm in keeping it in the external links. Pastordavid (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission
Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission began due to content disputes at the DLM article, which you haven't been editing, but it has grown to include all of the Prem Rawat articles. Since you're active on the bio article, etc. it would be helpful if you'd join the mediation.

Also, I didn't see a PA in these edits-. Saying that a user's edits have multiple problems may have been pointless and unhelpful but it is not a personal attack in my view. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

AE notice
The next time you file an AE case, make sure you notify the person you're reporting on. (re USer:Momento. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 02:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing the comments of others
Editing the comments of other is strongly discouraged in general. Doing so in a fashion that leaves the original comments disjointed or unclear in places is even less acceptable. Please ask the editor, politely, to redact his comments. If you feel that this would not be a wise course of action, or it does not resolve the issue, you may raise the issue on AN/I to ask an uninvolved admin to review the situation. Vassyana (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't edit other people's comments
As you're doing here. Specially when they are critical of your own actions, this just looks supremely bad. Also, I see no personal attack here, but rather objections to your editing behavior. Criticism is not the same thing as a personal attack. Friday (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I second the two above. Please don't do that again, or I'd have to block you for disruption. (And I would do that even if it was not also then a 3RR case). Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton's edits
Sorry, I should have also added reason to the edits I guess, please see talk section labelled "Rumiton!" -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 21:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Pilate's wife and us
Listen, I think we have a winner with Pontius Pilate's wife, as it currently stands. I am nominating it for WP:GA -- I think it deserves that accolade. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

PS I am happy to report that Pontius Pilate's wife received WP:GA status. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule
I'd advise you to take extreme caution. I've spotted in the history of the Prem Rawat article that you have made 3 reversions, although the edits were undone, they still count as reversions, under the three revert rule. Use the talk page if there are edits that you disagree with, but another reversion would put you in violation of 3RR. Please take care. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reported you for 3RR at .Momento (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

May I request your assistance regarding a notification again?
Hi Rlevse (or whoever reads this),

I'm about to add a subtopic to Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Could someone notify Momento about this? I'm still under an obligation not to post on 's talk page, per his request. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * done — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 10:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My request to Francis was to stop harassing me on my talk page . There has never been prohibition against civil comments. ArbCom notifications are obviously a requirement and he is obliged to send them to me direct.Momento (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Block
Per Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement you have been blocked 48 hours. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 14:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

boxed section at MOSNUM
I'm sure you meant well, but I don't understand the purpose served by putting a box around that section. Doesn't it mean that we will now have to wait another 10 (or 15?) days before it gets archived? The problem is that the page gets huge and I am often unable to load it. There may be other editors in a similar position. Still, the page is already much shorter than it was, so no great harm done I guess. Thunderbird2 (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat edit
A recent edit of yours has sparked controversy. It'd be best if you undid it and discussed it on the article talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

ANI
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yours, Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  01:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

request for comment

 * Hello. I would appreciate your comments here and here. Thank you. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)