| Revision as of 20:10, 21 July 2005 editGabrielsimon (talk | contribs)2,118 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:17, 21 July 2005 edit undoCraigkbryant (talk | contribs)270 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| its not origional reerch. check around , youll see. | its not origional reerch. check around , youll see. | ||
| ] 20:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | ] 20:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
| --It is this sort of comment that I find particularly frustrating. You have done much the same thing on the Vampire and Werewolf pages--people, including me, have challenged your sourcing and you make these coy little responses like "check around; you'll see." Do you actually understand what an encyclopedia _is?_ PROVIDE CITATIONS AND REFERENCES if you are asked to back up your assertions. Your edits seem to continually degrade the quality of Misplaced Pages as a factual reference. If you want to advance your own POV and independent positions, you will find the Internet abounds in resources for that sort of work. Misplaced Pages is not one of them.--] 20:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:17, 21 July 2005
whats sock puppeting? Gabrielsimon 14:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Using multiple accounts pretending they are different people. ~~~~ 17:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
link labelled "1" on the other page, not my work, i was reverting it, and was planning on modifying it, but never got the chance to.
Gabrielsimon 14:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Once or even twice, I think the community would disregard. Based on a review of your talk page, you seem to have frequent and repeated run-ins with the Misplaced Pages community standards. I'm just an editor, but I perceive a clear pattern of disruption. There is a point where credulity becomes stretched at accepting the idea that you 'made an honest mistake', especially after so many transgressions. I am not an admin or spokesman, just a fellow editor sharing my perception of the situation. - Chairboy 14:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
as for links 4, 5, 6, this was the truth i was putting in, and i even tried to make it sound NPOV, other people just didnt like it. Gabrielsimon 14:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- I think those are covered under the 'Original research' element of the rfc, not npov. - Chairboy 14:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
its not origional reerch. check around , youll see. Gabrielsimon 20:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
--It is this sort of comment that I find particularly frustrating. You have done much the same thing on the Vampire and Werewolf pages--people, including me, have challenged your sourcing and you make these coy little responses like "check around; you'll see." Do you actually understand what an encyclopedia _is?_ PROVIDE CITATIONS AND REFERENCES if you are asked to back up your assertions. Your edits seem to continually degrade the quality of Misplaced Pages as a factual reference. If you want to advance your own POV and independent positions, you will find the Internet abounds in resources for that sort of work. Misplaced Pages is not one of them.--Craigkbryant 20:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)