User talk:MontChevalier
Book of Sent Sovi moved to draftspace
[edit]An article you recently created, Book of Sent Sovi, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.
Hitro talk 08:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
It comes, word for word, from the Spanish wikipedia page. MontChevalier 03:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]
Hello, MontChevalier. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Warning
[edit]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
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. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Use the article talk page
[edit]Instead of trying to make this personal[1], why not go to the article talk page and prove that source(s) call it a "pyrrhic victory"? Your interpretation of events is original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I have a feeling that no matter what I put, your obstinate ass isn't going to approve of anything.
November 2018
[edit] This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User:Kansas Bear, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. "Obstinate ass" is one thing, but this is another. Please don't do this anymore. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
So he insults me, and I'm the problem? This is brilliant.
MontChevalier (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Henry II, Count of Schwarzburg moved to draftspace
[edit]An article you recently created, Henry II, Count of Schwarzburg, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Britishfinance (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Book of Sent Sovi
[edit]
Hello, MontChevalier. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Book of Sent Sovi".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Dolotta (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
April 2019
[edit]
Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to The Warriors (film). Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
It's insane that wikipedia allows profanity when it's unnecessary. So we can't name call but quotes are completely okay? I've got a quote, "Etymology fuck + -er (“(agent suffix)”)
Pronunciation IPA(key): /ˈfʌk.ə(ɹ)/ Audio (UK) MENU0:00 Rhymes: -ʌkə(r) Noun fucker (plural fuckers)
(derogatory, vulgar) An undesirable person. You fucker, you wrecked my car! (vulgar) The object of some effort. Let’s see if we can fix this fucker. (vulgar, humorous) People, friends, especially of very high solidarity. What’s up, fucker!? (rare, vulgar) One who fucks. She was a good fucker, but to tell the truth, I had had enough for the night. Synonyms Thesaurus:copulator (undesirable person): asshole, bastard, cunt, motherfucker, pigfucker, pissbutt, shit (object of some effort): bad boy, bastard, bugger (British), puppy See also Thesaurus:git"
We know that this is a word which should be shown to children, since wikipedia frequent it. Nevermind what parents think.
Hello, MontChevalier. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Henry II, Count of Schwarzburg.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Edit warring
[edit]Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.Bartholomite (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hello MontChevalier. You have left a legal threat at User talk:Bartholomite#Spreading disinformation. If you don't withdraw the threat, you are risking an indefinite block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll let the Church deal with you. But if you block me, you'll only dig your own grave deeper.
MontChevalier (talk) 11:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Per this edit where you state that 'legal action will be incurred'. You also mentioned a 'cease and desist'. If you withdraw the legal threat, this block might be lifted. I am unsure what this disagreement is actually about. Maybe some other editor who knows might fill in the background here. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- You were warned. I've already got my popcorn ready. The Bishop will be contacting your offices. Have fun with that. MontChevalier (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- For the benefit of any reviewers, this dispute seems to have begun at Victor and Corona. MontChevalier made some edits there that triggered the edit filter. After some of their edits were reverted, MontChevalier issued the legal threats. I am unclear on whether there is disagreement about the cult of the saints Victor and Corona. The main problem was MontChevalier wanting to use lifesitenews.com as a source. That web site is listed in WP:RSP as deprecated, based on a 2019 RfC on its reliability. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)