Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The White Hart of Wikiwood (talk | contribs) at 15:00, 17 January 2012 (→3RR Warning: False titles of nobility: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

| Archive page

Dohezarsersdah

Dohezarsersdah is not new to wikipedia. He's been blanking his page for a while now. More serious warnings are in order.--Louiedog (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI I'd say. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for the info.--Yopie (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've warned him also at this point. I've also requested protection of Theocracy. You're at three reverts at this point, so I'd leave it alone now until an admin can step in. Calabe1992 (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I will leave article till this will be solved.--Yopie (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Dohezarsersdah taken to ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Calabe1992 (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Self-published sources

Per WP:SPS, what evidence is there that François Velde has ever had "work in the relevant field ... published by reliable third-party publications"? He has written about some interesting topics within his primary field of expertise, but I don't see anything on heraldry or royalty.   Will Beback  talk  18:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Any response?   Will Beback  talk  11:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN discussion that isn't likely to go anywhere

It appears you have not been notified by the OP, template AN-notice: Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Monty₈₄₅ 23:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Alleged advertising

I deny having added self-promoting material or advertisement to the page Micronation. Could you please tell me what I did to that page that supposedly counts as self-promotion? Uberstadt (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're referring to. I did not add that link; somebody else did. My edit was getting rid of underscores in the text of the article due to improper link formatting. Again, I did not add that link. Before accusing me again, please look at who actually made the edit that created questionable material. Uberstadt (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for it. --Yopie (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Order of Merit

Waite a minute chill! I don't think that you have the right to speak about explanation! I wrote the biggest explanation of all time. Why to have all these refferences as Leigh Rayment is wildely considered by wikipedia as a reliable source? You know that I am right but you are anti-IP IPs are people too!--46.246.230.229 (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but "better look" is not argument, especially if you feel "ugly" about refs in the list. There are many similar lists and this is commonly accepted.--Yopie (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

3RR Warning: False titles of nobility

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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

--- Breadbasket (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)