Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:31, 11 January 2008

done!!Josuechan (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Blanking your talk page

Please in the future refrain from blanking your talk page, it provides a useful history and tracking device to monitor your editing. The blanking of talk pages evokes thoughts of evasion techniques and it is especially nice to see the complete talk pages of those either with questionable editing and/or that might be suspected of working for a national security apparatus such as CIA, SVR, MI6 etc etc.--Miyokan (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You are just a rude guy!!! Coloane (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, he's expressing a widely held and rational viewpoint. However, it is not universal and there are many more delinquent editors that also remove negative comments with seeming impunity. Alice 04:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

The size template does not only apply to Featured Article candidates.--Miyokan (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking about the template, I am talking about the size!! Coloane (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Then you haven't been paying attention at all because the whole point of contention on the United States article is the insertion of the size template!--Miyokan (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to open a new subsection to talk about the template because my comment is closely related over there. I know what you are talking about. I don't need to write a new section over there. Coloane (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but your english is not making any sense, I don't understand what you are trying to say.--Miyokan (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is not my problem, it is your problem, what do you think(kak we domeyete)? Coloane (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It is your problem because how do you expect to communicate with users if they can't understand you. I just understand what you meant. So you have admitted that your comment was off topic-("closely related"). That *does* mean that you need to put it in a new subsection because it is off-topic.--Miyokan (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

net, ete ne pria-vanaa(No, that is not correct)! It is closely related. Again, I strongly suggest that you spend some time on the topic of Russia. You are just wasting your time over here. Poka e udachi! Coloane (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:United States

Why are you blanking or altering comments made by others? Please stop. --Golbez (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to these two edits: you change Miyokan's edit of his own statement, but worse, you delete an entire section. Please be more careful. --Golbez (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, never revert someone with a minor tag unless it's blatant vandalism. --Golbez (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop the disruption

I've removed your bad-faith and WP:POINT nomination of Indonesia FAR. It's clear that you only did it because you don't agree with an Indonesia editor's comments on the Macau FAC. Your talk page shows similar disruption regarding Russia and the United States. Do it again and I will report it to WP:ANI. Thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't remove it as I provided reason on it. I will put it back! Coloane (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, your stated reasons are invalid, and as the nomination is bad faith, I will report you to WP:ANI. It is clear that the nomination is linked to the Macau FAC. --Merbabu (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry you are having these similar sort of problems with Coloane that we have had on Singapore related articles, Merbabu.

Coloane: You may wish to contribute to the discussion here Alice 04:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)