User talk:Francis Schonken/Archive 04

Pronoun Problem

You have been recently active on the WP:V talk page. Please visit this discussion on WP:VPP and contribute comments if you want to. Thank you. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RSUE

You may be interested in this proposal to revise the text for articles using non-English sources. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Hi Francis. To help better sort out general consensus adopted naming conventions and those that have not received general consensus, I created and populated Category:Wikipedia naming conventions proposals. Basically, if the naming convention is not listed in Category:Wikipedia naming conventions, it should be listed in Category:Wikipedia naming conventions proposals. There are some efforts that appear questionable as to whether general consensus or localized consensus was used to determine the naming convention status. If you have some time, please go through Category:Wikipedia naming conventions and Category:Wikipedia naming conventions proposals to help ensure that things are appropriately categorized. Thanks. -- Bebestbe (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sortable table

That looks like a lot of work to organize and maintain, but if you're interested then more power to you. I compiled that list partly because I'm lazy and didn't want to have to keep re-typing citations. It's a bit rough, mostly because I copied some last names to the front of entries to allow alphabetic sorting. Feel free to improve it any way you can. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I posted a note at Talk:Prem Rawat/Bibliography -- there may be an easy way to convert many citations at once. Not sure you saw it (a sane person might avoid the discussion sections to maintain sanity). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks for the reply. No, I didn't mean any elaborate bot. I meant the run of the mill "replace" function built into most text editors. The references that are in templated form have already been dissected into "author", "publisher" etc. Starting with those could be much easier than starting from the crude, irregular text in the "raw" section. Anyway, you're the one doing the work so it's just a suggestion. Yes, I saw the "doubtful" section - good idea. There are always odd entries that need further investigation. I've gone over the list trying to fix some of them. It still looks like a big project, but you're making progress. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please remove

Please remove your baseless claim from my talk page.Momento (talk) 10:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No thanks

I do not need edit warring template on my talk page. Please discuss in article talk if you have any concerns about my edits. Any further such templates on my talk page will be mercilessly deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

your edit summary in reversion at Stravinsky

I see that you framed the removal of the date autoformatting as "disruption". It might have disrupted your view that nothing should change—that view I've had to experience before in your dogged rejection of change at places such as the Naming page. This is not a personal attack: I merely want to express my disappointment in your continued role in blocking change in the project. I realise that this might be an unfair assumption, since I don't know your complete history and can go by only what I've seen at first hand, which is not encouraging. I wonder why you chose to justify your reversion with the word "disruption", rather than a substantive reason, for example.

I see that you've reinstated the linking of simple years there; this is very odd. The argument that they should no longer be linked was resolved some time ago, and I must ask you to justify how they satisfy the MOS requirements that they not "draw attention away from the high-value links that you would like your readers to follow up", and that "low value items [should not be] linked without reason". Can you explain how those year articles might be considered "high-value" links in the Stravinsky article? Tony (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, I'm really not interested in delving into ancient history; what I asked you for was a response to my direct questions to you. Are you going to provide such responses? Tony (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answered in relation to the modern requirements of MOS, MOSLINK and CONTEXT, which have well and truly changed since 2006, viz. my specific quotations here and requests for your justification of the linking of those years in the Stravinsky topic. Nor have you provided a broader response to the matters in my post. I expected that you'd be willing to back up your actions by directly engaging with my points, not just shoving a link to somewhere three years old that is not useful in this context. I'm going to bed now. Tony (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "illustrating a point": far from it, the point doesn't need illustrating. I await your responses to the points I made, in particular, my request that you justify your linking of single years like 1951. Tony (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Arabic Numerals

Hi I undid your changes to Arabic_numerals since it makes sense to retain the name as Hindu-Arabic_numerals. Other related articles are named thus, see Hindu-Arabic_numeral_system & History_of_the_Hindu-Arabic_numeral_system. Moreover, using the term "Arabic numerals" might be misleading since arabs today use numbers that are based on the Hindu Arabic numeral system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.148 (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I copied your comment to Talk:Arabic numerals, which is the proper place to discuss this, and replied there. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat case

Hi there. Steve Crossin asked me to watch the pages while he was on holiday, and I have some concerns about your talk page conduct. In this edit, you were reverted for refactoring a comment by Jossi (talk · contribs). You claimed that it was necessary for context, however, refactoring any talk page comment by another is not appropriate. Despite being reverted, you undid the reversion, with the comment "don't delete my comments". As a note for the future, it is not appropriate for you to cut down other comments, so please refrain from this in the future. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I misread "content" as "context" and got the words jumbled. :) I'm not quite sure whether this falls under non-free content, as Jossi is disputing that the content is no different than here. Either way, it would be more in-keeping with etiquette to alert the user that their comment has been removed, and wait until the discussion is concluded before actually removing it. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note (FFX related)

Francis, I know we're having a discussion about something, but unrelated to all this, I made this edit, that you may find useful. I can get you a source if you need it, but I am 100% sure that Mika's first name is definitely Yo. Steve Crossin ^Contact/₂₄ 12:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I'd like to encourage you to reconsider your rejection of further mediation. With Steve (more or less) gone the only viable route for continuing mediation is the offer from AGK. He has said that he would take a more proactive approach to mediating. I don't think the lack of progress in the informal mediation is a predictor for what we might achieve in "formal" mediation. If we can't get all of the major editors to agree then we can't proceed. As a practical matter, one editor has already said he plans to use your failure to agree to mediation as an example of your unwillingness to participate in dispute resolution. In my opinion that was an unhelpful statement, but at least it's honest. If you prefer to not be active in the mediation that's probably OK. But we still need your agreement to proceed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• If you don't want to participate in mediation, can you at least commit to not editing the main article during mediation, or otherwise disrupting the process for those who do participate? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 3. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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.

Hiya Francis, I'm not involved directly with the Prem Rawat case but iv been aware of it for some time. I was wondering what issues led you to withdrawing from the mediation. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 16:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Belgium local chapter creation

Hi,

I'm going to relaunch the process of the creation of a Belgian local chapter.

Can you tell me if:

1. you're still interested by the process
2. you're only interested to become member or want to involve yourself in others tasks
3. you know any information about current status not published on meta
4. you can translate handle some Dutch or German translations from French or English

Thanks. --Dereckson (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't

• Don't refactor my comments from articles talk pages
• Don't refactor my comments or comments from others from Wikipedia namespace pages.

Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It was appropriate for Frances to move a lengthy process discussion off of the peer review request. Those pages are transcluded into the overal peer review page and off-topic threads just clutter the page and make useful suggestions less likely. Discussions like that belong on the talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

The following remark by you was uncivil:

• Those of us who want to adhere to a Rawatian paradigm ("consistently rejecting 'theoretical' knowledge as 'useless'," according to Mangalwadi 1992), and think this is going to work if each of us only accepts his/her own intuition as measure of what can be done and what can't be done in Wikipedia, definitely need to look for another hobby

If your behavior continues to be disruptive, then you are going to banned from editing this topic. PhilKnight (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

...I don't see that as incivil. Is it? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations

I have nominated Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Kelly ^hi! 22:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Martinphi did some more disruptive editing of policy today:

Here he claims that WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, a part of NPOV policy that has been part of policy since 2001 in nearly the same form as today [1] does not actually have any relevance, and does not apply to articles on Parapsychology. He then attacked everyone who upheld the policy, declared intent to force changes through,[2] then leapt over to the policy page and attempted to delete the phrasing he dislikes.[3]

I've opened a request that arbcom reinstate his edit restriction for another year Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Shoemaker.27s_Holiday, but since you dealt with his most recent incident, thought you should know about this one. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Terrorists

Please see:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#"See also" section. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you please stop reverting each one of my edits

This is becoming a pattern: You keep reverting each an every one of my edits. Can you please stop doing that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Template:Terrorism category definition. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. 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. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Fibonacci

For which (positive) numbers is it not true that "The ratios between consecutive numbers of the [Fibonacci] sequence approach the golden ratio"? 1:1 is nearer than 0:1, 1:2 is nearer than 1:1, 2:3 is nearer than 1:2 ... As far as I can see, you've merely replaced approach with a longer way of saying approach, and replaced ratio with a longer way of saying ratio. —Tamfang (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I wish you had said sooner that you were concerned about the layman unaware of the concept of convergence. Hm. On reflection, I think any native speaker would find it strange to use approach as a synonym for approximate; a variable can approach a constant, but a constant cannot approach anything. (One may say coyly "the price is something approaching $100"; the mental image I get is of someone counting out money so that the amount paid approaches $100, though it stops at an unspecified point along the way.) Nor am I happy about the concept that the later ratios are golden approximations but the first few are not, as if there is a fixed window.

Well, you've persuaded me to abandon my previous language, at least. —Tamfang (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Ecoleetage (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

Hi Francis, further to our discussion on the NPOV policy talk page, I have posted a draft revision for the Undue section and would value your input. Cheers, Jayen466 00:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

small clarification

Just to avoid larger issues in the future, I wanted to point out that this reversion you did, while appropriate for other reasons, should not be construed as vandalism (as per your edit summary), as the original edit was an attempt to improve the project, albeit a misplaced one. I point this out merely because some editors might not take kindly to having their good faith efforts construed that way; in most cases that comes off as really BITEy. Thanks for the consideration, and happy editing. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(per your reply here and copied) I think I see -- the topic of Jmcc's post was about vandalism, but the post itself was misplaced, or something like that. My sincere apologies for the misunderstanding :) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

RFAR

I have initiated a request for arbitration and named you as a party.[4] You may wish to make a statement there. Durova^Charge! 08:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2

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, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz ^talk 21:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yo

Hey, I saw how you changed my edit on the article Republic.
The reason I changed the name of that section to Democratic republic is because Democratic republic redirected to Democracy which is totally wrong. A Democratic republic is a republic with the emphasis that it is democratic. And the section Concepts of democracy explained that. Instead of redirecting Democratic republic to Concepts of democracy, I directed it to a disambig page. It should make sense now.
Mdandrea (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Date delinking en masse is currently temporarily forbidden

Fine. So, what are you doing to slow down or stop the creation of new date overlinking, in violation of WP:MOS? And how you define "en masse"? Is it an arbitrary number that you make up as you go? First, some guy drops into my talk page and tells me I should link dates. Then, a while later some other guy tells me I should not link dates. Now, you're telling me I shouldn't unlink dates. Is this insane, or what? Besides, I don't take kindly to you posting in my talk page with a "warning", as if I were some kind of vandal. —Quicksilver^{T @} 20:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Republic

Please watch your behaviour on the republic article. I appreciate the effort you have put into the page, but please stop reverting any user that changes it. Please see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. It is tempting to think of articles as your own, but this is an encyclopedia based on collaboration and consensus. I did provide explanations of why I removed the religion section both in my edit message and on the talk page. You made no effort to reply to either. Accusing users in good standing of vandalism is a personal attack. See also assume good faith. I'll give you some time to try and improve the sourcing on that section before I remove it again. - SimonP (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I made comments here on March 30 and another used made comments at Talk:Republic that you never responded to. Rather you simply waited a week and reverted. While you might be satisfied with the state of the article, it is clear that other users are not. While reverting might be easier, discussing the issue and trying to reach a compromise is a much better way of proceeding. - SimonP (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Republic (again)

Hi Francis Schonken, thanks for your edits on Republic. I noticed when you undid my edit, you left the comment "re-add caveat." I'm not sure what that means. Can you clarify? Thanks. WakingLili (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for explaining. I've redone the edit, this time including the caveat, and fixing the wikilinks with a separate edit. Is this more to your liking? (I wish I could find a simpler sentence structure, but including the caveat seemed the most important.) WakingLili (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:R#SUPPRESS

Since the instructions are specifically directed at administrators, perhaps you should leave it alone since you are not one? –xeno (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Why edit war?

Please see Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Edit warring. Thank you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

RFAR/Prem Rawat 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Momento (talk · contribs) and Rumiton (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Prem Rawat or any related article (including talk pages) for one year. The Prem Rawat article and all related articles are subject to revert limitations for one year. Several users are admonished for their conduct in the case and all parties and other interested editors are encouraged to restart mediation in relation to Prem Rawat. Also, should Jossi (talk · contribs) return to Wikipedia to edit Prem Rawat articles, he is required to contact the Arbitration Committee beforehand. These remedies are in addition to, and do not replace, the remedies passed in RFAR/Prem Rawat.

For the Committee. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Consensus?

If there is any consensus on this issue it is to the form of government phrasing. So far no one but yourself has opposed this. You have also continued to not reply to any talk page comments. If the country definition is truly the correct one, as you seem to believe, I'm sure at least one other user would be willing to revert to that version. How about you wait for them to do so rather than continue to revert war on your own. - SimonP (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Republic

Hello,

I'm not certain as to the reason for moving my edit. If you think the definition I gave is mistaken in some way, I am happy to discuss it. Or is it simply that you want to keep the article clean while it is in the process of a rewrite?

Cheers, BillMasen (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Suggestion to unprotect Wikipedia:Content forking

Hi there,

I'm sorry I didn't reply earlier, I have been busy in these past few weeks. As you say the RFC has been closed, and it seems that discussion on the talk page has been little in the past month, I've unprotected the article. If a dispute or edit warring continues, please leave me a message and I will protect the page again.

Hope this helps,

The Helpful One 10:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ogives

I am not happy about the way you reverted my page move of Ogive (music) to Ogives. I would appreciate your comments at Talk:Ogive (music). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Naming Conflict policy

A user is wanting to radically change the Wikipedia Naming Conflict guideline, particularly with relevance to cutting the section on self-identifying names. A change that might cause havoc in a number of widely-argued naming conflict articles. There is very little involvement of the wider community in this at the moment, so as one of the early contributors to this guideline, I thought I'd ask if you would be interested in commenting at Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict Xandar 20:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Chapter wikimedia Belgium

Hello,

We want to create a Belgian wikimedia chapter. This chapter would work in 3 languages : Dutch, French, and English as administrative language. An effort of translation would be made towards the French and the Dutch. If you're interested by the creation of Belgian section, you can join us on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Belgium/Members . --M0tty (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, As you're in meta:Wikimedia Belgium/Members, could you subscribe on the mailing list: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediabe-l --M0tty (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

RCC or CC

You took part in Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 3#REQUESTED MOVE to Catholic Church there is a new requested move see Talk:Catholic Church#Requested Move --PBS (talk) 08:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Precision thing

Hi, could you explain what a "precision thing" is in reference to finalising a name with the avoidance of confusion in mind? ~ R.T.G 21:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Quantum mysticism

I hate to say it but I just noticed that you took the policy tag off Quantum mysticism. While I sympathize with why you did this I still think the tag would be useful to attract the right type of editor. I think the core problems is explaining to a few editors the meaning of WP:OR which makes this a policy issue in my mind. I'll wait for your thoughts before re-adding the policy tag.--OMCV (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Policy RfC is only for prospected changes to policies and guidelines (keeping your problem there gave the impression you wanted to change policy to suit your purposes, what is clearly not what you intended).

There's an OR noticeboard too - maybe even more suitable then the Fringe theory noticeboard where I placed the item. For the time being I'd keep it there though: one doesn't want to give the impression one would be forum shopping, isn't it?

Those kind of noticeboards attract the "right kind of people" far better than the policy-writing in-crowd. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up my question as to what Policy RfC is about. Two or three weeks ago I posted a request at WP:NORN and had no response. So in a sense I am shopping but my shopping is mostly to find experienced editors willing to get involved in the conversation.--OMCV (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions

About this: The two links you restored now redirect to the sections that you otherwise blanked. They were merged into WP:NC about two weeks ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Re your various reverts of merge-related edits claiming that the merge was done without consensus - this merge (and the many other recent changes to the naming conventions page) were most certainly advertised and discussed for a long time, and are fundamentally acceptd by consensus (see the recent naming conventions archives, and the archives of the former pages, which are all accessible from the archive box at WT:NC. Some discussion also took place at Wikipedia talk:Naming convention draft.) Of course we can still work on improving the wording - maybe you could make some suggestions at WT:NC - but please don't make any more wholesale changes like that, as people have been working together to improve the accuracy and presentation of these pages. Thanks,--Kotniski (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Politica

The article Politica has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Campus journal.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 10:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Francis Schonken! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 940 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Oliviero Toscani - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Vexations-MIDI.zip

A tag has been placed on File:Vexations-MIDI.zip requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip [i.e. a Word document or PDF file] that has no encyclopedic use.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Footnotes

Template:Footnotes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Carrelage phonique.MID

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Carrelage phonique.MID. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Terrorism templates in category namespace

Category:Terrorism templates in category namespace, 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. --Bsherr (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BELIEFS

A long time ago you were part of the discussion on the WP:BELIEFS proposal. I went away for a while and I am trying to come back slowly, so I thought I would start with updating that page and reactivating the conversation. Please join in if you still would like to be part of that discussion. Low Sea (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Maindab

Template:Maindab has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. WOSlinker (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Philosophy by era

Category:Philosophy by era, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Mike Selinker (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Belgium

Hello Francis Schonken, In 2008 you signed on this list that you are interested in founding Wikimedia Belgium. After some silent years, we reactivated the process of founding a chapter in Belgium (and Luxembourg) in 2011, and are currently still working to form the chapter in 2012/2013. If you are still interested in setting up a chapter in Belgium, please sign up on wmbe:Founding/Interested_people. Be welcome! Greetings - Romaine (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of One gets used to anything, except a guy

The article One gets used to anything, except a guy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
One gets used to anything, except a guy – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 19:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of One gets used to anything, except a guy

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on One gets used to anything, except a guy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —Ignatzmice^talk_contribs 04:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

I have looked over your latest edits to Prem Rawat, and while I'm not going to revert anything I will strongly suggest you bring them up on the talkpage. Making major, contentious edits to that article is a recipe for disaster, and discussing your edits on the talkpage would likely head off a tremendous amount of conflict. Also, I'm going to issue you a formal notification of the discretionary sanctions in the topic area since it seems you haven't received one; it's not saying you did anything wrong, but you should know that active ArbCom remedies are in force. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Prem Rawat. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of symphonies with names may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | ||''Ländliche Hochzeit''||''[[Rustic Wedding Symphony]]''|| ||literally "Countryside Wedding")
• |[[Ernst Toch]]|Toch]]||5|| ||''Jephtha, Rhapsodic Poem''|| || ||

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Never add me to that list again, tx. Francis Schonken (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

NCPEOPLE

Why are you adding an entire section to a stable guideline when the very material you want to add is still under RfC discussion? Our guideline pages consist of e consensus-based advice we ask all fellow editors to follow; they are not lists of pointers to ongoing disputes. It's more appropriate to "advertise" the discussion at WP:VPP.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Subject pref

I reposted your subject preference RfC notice from WT:AT to WT:MOS since the topic's been a recent hot debate there as well.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:LGBT people in and around the Bloomsbury Group

Category:LGBT people in and around the Bloomsbury Group, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Full font names

Just a word of thanks, that I appreciate what you tried to do at WP:DIACRITICS, that was the most positive approach I have seen in the last 2-3 years since the wholesale acceptance of full fonts resolved by RFCs at Hockey and Tennis in 2011 2012, but I think we have to accept that Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) has a different set of editors/watchers to the bio and geo article corpus as a whole, so the conflict between what en.wp does and what WP:DIACRITICS says will remain. As it stands there are plenty of other guidelines which do encourage full fonts and high-MOS sources, so other guidelines can simply be cited if there's any move to "strip" specific articles. Thanks again. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Bloomsbury Group people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Angelica Bell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Mike V • Talk 00:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Francis_Schonken reported by User:Obiwankenobi (Result: ). Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as you did at Wikipedia:Categorization of people. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. tx. No problem. I know where I went off the rails.

Regarding BrownHairedGirl's block review:

• Re. "... AFICS Obi is correct that the substantive problem is that User:Francis Schonkenhas been making significant changes to the guideline without seeking consensus, ...":
  • "without seeking consensus":
    • Prior to my first removal (09:18, 8 June 2014) of the material Obiwankenobi wanted to keep in:
      • 30 May 2014
      • 31 May 2014
      • 1 June 2014
    • After first revert (12:00, 8 June 2014, by Obiwankenobi):
      • 9 June 2014
    • After second revert (12:17, 9 June 2014, by Obiwankenobi):
      • 9 June 2014 (and more)
    • After third revert (14:11, 9 June 2014, by Obiwankenobi):
      • 9 June 2014 (and many more)
    • After fourth revert (12:12, 12 June 2014, by Obiwankenobi):
      • 17 June 2014
    • After sixth revert (19:23, 17 June 2014, by Obiwankenobi):
      • 18 June 2014 (and more)
    • After seventh revert (12:33, 18 June 2014, by Obiwankenobi):
      • 18 June 2014 (and more)
    • I'm quite careful to provide direct links to where the discussion was in the edit summaries. I'm sure BHG must have seen these bluelinks, so don't understand why jumping to conclusion "without seeking consensus" (my bolding).
    • I'm not saying I shouldn't have done *much* better, but contest "without seeking consensus" (my bolding).
• Re. "an experienced editor such as Obi" — creates the illusion I would be less experienced.
• Re. "Obi had been given up reverting, and had been discussing the issue on the talk page." — creates the illusion Obiwankenobi would have continued discussion on the talk page after giving up reverting, which didn't happen. During the "further 9 edits to the talk page" he made after his last revert there was nothing to revert, the page was at the version preferred by him. (for clarity: in that same period I also engaged in talk on the talk page, with about the same amount of edits).
• Re. "I hope that both editors will use this episode as an opportunity to review their approach to editing guidelines." Agree! I'm much in favour of a no-nonsense approach, please. For clarity: I'm OK with the block as is.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Francis, most of your edits don't link to any discussion. In fact, I only see one which does.

Furthermore, the linked discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization_of_people#WP:COP.23N:_Occupations_only.3F involves only two editors (you+Obi). The pair of you clearly disagree, so there is no consensus ... yet you keep on inserting your changes.

That's not consensus-forming. That's edit-warring.

For guidelines, it's usually best to discuss changes before implementing them. If both of you took that approach, this edit war need never have happened. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Starting some draft work on an article I intend to write

Preliminary:

• At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 19#Category:LGBT writers from Belgium I suggested that Category:Dutch-language LGBT writers might be a more useful intersection category than Category:LGBT writers from Belgium (reasoning: WP:EGRS#Special subcategories — "Dedicated group-subject subcategories ... should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right.", and from the next section of EGRS "The criterion of whether an encyclopedic article is possible should be the gauge")
• Sporting these ideas I found this 2012 newspaper article on the topic of LGBT writers in the Dutch language area, containing: "Van de 360 namen op de lijst met Nederlandstalige schrijvers op Wikipedia, is maar van vier grote namen bekend dat ze homo zijn." (translation: "From 360 names on the list of Dutch-language writers at Wikipedia, only four of the big names are known as homosexual"). Seems like something that needs an update at Wikipedia!

---

moved to LGBT writers in the Dutch-language area --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Please revert

Francis, now that we've both been through a block I don't want to get into edit wars again. Thus, please revert your change which does not have consensus, and we can discuss a compromise position, and let's stick to the agreement to not make further substantive edits to that policy absent agreement in the talk page. If necessary we can frame an RFC to bring in more eyes.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Francis, I know you're actively editing. I will consider it in extremely bad faith if you do not revert your change to the guideline which was made absent consensus of anyone on the talk page.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the rollback, my finger slipped. DrKiernan (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited LGBT writers in the Dutch-language area, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages French and Robert Long (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)