| Revision as of 14:59, 21 July 2005 editGabrielsimon (talk | contribs)2,118 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:47, 21 July 2005 edit undo-Ril- (talk | contribs)10,465 edits (most of) defence moved to appropriate section on RFC itselfNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| ] 14:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | ] 14:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
| Using multiple accounts pretending they are different people. ] 17:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| as for the most recent block which apparently triggered this posting of yours, it was nto a " resumption of behaviour" as it was awssumed to be by this pages poster, it was in fact of an entirly differnt nature, but i dont supposes you were goingto bother to actaully read the conversations about it, hrmm? | |||
| ] 14:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| as for the blanking allegation, please look at hte next avaliable place in the edit histroy. that being http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Missing_Sun_myth&diff=next&oldid=18662169. | |||
| ] 14:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| as for "misleading comments" it is plain to see if you examine the eit histories of al lthe articles in question about missing sun motif and or myth that i am not incorrect that the page renaming as done without consensus, i was my belief that to undo that would be justified, | |||
| ] 14:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Line 17: | Line 9: | ||
| :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. - ] 14:47, 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. - ] 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. | 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. | ||
| ] 14:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | ] 14:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :I think those are covered under the 'Original research' element of the rfc, not npov. - ] 14:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | :I think those are covered under the 'Original research' element of the rfc, not npov. - ] 14:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
| as for nine and ten, it was simply that the other editor refusedto supply adqquate proof, and seems to have reverted out of some long held spite. | |||
| ] 14:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| as for 11, 12, 13, i had put a lot ofeffort into typingthose out, and the explaination seemed rather weak. | |||
| ] 14:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| 17 through twenty, typos aside, this was the truth of the matter, and not MY truth, simply The truth, i care not for people whj ike to tone down the truth and use paltry excuses. i might admit that the wording as a bit harsh, but it is not unjust. | |||
| ] 14:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| 21 is not a vanadlaistic comment, it is, again, simply the truth put too harshly for people who are, as has been said, of a different POV. | |||
| ] 14:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ther is no "baiting" and the discussions invilving septembe 11 attacks page is found on my talk page. | |||
| ] 14:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| all in all this seems poorly constructedevidance to me, but thats just me. | |||
| ] 14:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:47, 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)