Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:02, 26 October 2009

Communications in Dutch: please see User talk:Francis Schonken/Dutch

Overleg in het nederlands: op User talk:Francis Schonken/Dutch a.u.b.

Victionarium → User talk:Francis Schonken/Latinus

Archives: Archive 01 - Archive 02 - Archive 03

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  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:Misplaced Pages naming conventions proposals. Basically, if the naming convention is not listed in Category:Misplaced Pages naming conventions, it should be listed in Category:Misplaced Pages 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:Misplaced Pages naming conventions and Category:Misplaced Pages 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 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 /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, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 3. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages: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 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 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, then leapt over to the policy page and attempted to delete the phrasing he dislikes.

I've opened a request that arbcom reinstate his edit restriction for another year Misplaced Pages: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:Misplaced Pages 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

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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. You may wish to make a statement there. Durova 08:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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: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 Misplaced Pages talk:Redirect#Edit warring. Thank you. -GTBacchus 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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/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)