| Revision as of 17:47, 21 July 2005 edit-Ril- (talk | contribs)10,465 edits (most of) defence moved to appropriate section on RFC itself← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:10, 21 July 2005 edit undoGabrielsimon (talk | contribs)2,118 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| ] 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) | ||
| its not origional reerch. check around , youll see. | |||
| ] 20:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:10, 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)