Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:32, 20 January 2013

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tudjmanism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-liberalism (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) 11:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

GOCE Copy Edit Request - Flag of Syria

Hi Wüstenfuchs - I just wanted to send you a quick message to inform you that your requested copy edit of the article Flag of Syria is complete. Best of luck on your GA! PS - I also added some wikilinks to the article, and performed some minor spacing cleanup to the wiki markup. Cheers, Freebirdthemonk 00:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: History of BiH (1878-1918)

"Bosnia and Herzegovina in Austria-Hungary" sounds like a good title, but because the occupation was made legit through the form of a condominium, I'm not sure if that should be the title. Please start a discussion on the talk page. --Joy (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC/RM

Hi

Two of us have been working on fixing the listing created by adding an RfC tag to an RM. Basically, in making a page move, if it is uncontroversial, any autoconfirmed user can just make the move, unless there is something in the way preventing that, in which case there are a couple of ways to get an admin to make the move or at least remove the impediment.

In the case of a potentially controversial move there are basically three choices, one, if it is already an article with a lot of watchers, a discussion such as "should this be moved" can be held, and based on the outcome, moved or not.

There are two formal ways of asking for more help. One, WP:RM, which lists the page for seven days after which a decision is made. Two, WP:RfC, which lists the discussion for 30 days, after which a decision is made. It is really not necessary to use both, and just confuses the situation. I would recommend deciding on one of the two, a 7 day discussion or a 30 day discussion and just deleting the other template. I added a comment just to allow the RfC bot to work, and all of that can be deleted, including the section heading that was created. Please feel free to ask if you have any questions. Apteva (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Aleppo dispute

Need your help at the Aleppo battle article. An anonymous user is refusing to acknowledge the New York times as a reliable source and refusing to acknowledge there is a stalemate in Aleppo at the moment. And is thus edit warring. EkoGraf (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, he seems to have given up. EkoGraf (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

EkoGraf, you are the one that gave up; you gave up pushing your regime propagandist worldview backed by poor referencing. A pleasant consequence of this episode is that it nicely exposes you for what you are; edit-warring on an article, and then running to a 10 time blocked User like Wüstenfuchs for help. Your disruptive editing will continue to be monitored. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.201 (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no... Anonymus is monitoring me! What to do, what to do?! --Wüstenfuchs 19:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

No, monitoring EkoGraf. You are just an obvious loser Wüstenfuchs who gets blocked constantly. Sooner than later it will be a permanent block.

Those guys getting "constantly blocked" were ChronicalUsual. Not Wustenfuchs. Sopher99 (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

How do we know that Wüstenfuchs and ChronicalUsual arn't the same person? They have identical editing histories, have both been blocked countless times, as well as both displaying a flawed grasp of the English language (suggesting a non native speaker). This link is something that should be looked into.

I believe you are San culottes, and obviously you don't like me... I don't mind. --Wüstenfuchs 22:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on his way of talking to other editors (insulting all the time) it seems you are right that it most likely is San culottes. In that case I will just stop talking to him. EkoGraf (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This "San culottes" was actually female if you check the edit history. But hey don't let facts get in the way of hating Users you disagree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.201 (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't care what he was, and I'm not interested in his edit history... perhaps you shouldn't be interested in mine as well, as I feel harassed by you. --Wüstenfuchs 14:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the facts once presented... so Wüstenfuchs! Stop hating Muslims then people won't have to correct your hate crime edits. Pretty simple.

Hello

There is a new armed force in syria. As you are a quality registered user from a long time, could you add it on the main syria civil war page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/National_Defense_Army_of_Syria — Preceding unsigned comment added by SopherJihad (talk • contribs) 16:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This article seems to be erased. --Wüstenfuchs 19:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Allahu Akbar, it was just ChronicalUsual trying to impersonate me. Sopher99 (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw it's not you... --Wüstenfuchs 22:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)