This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gabrielsimon (talk | contribs) at 14:54, 21 July 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:54, 21 July 2005 by Gabrielsimon (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)whats sock puppeting? Gabrielsimon 14:05, 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? Gabrielsimon 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.
Gabrielsimon 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, Gabrielsimon 14:41, 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)
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. Gabrielsimon 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.
Gabrielsimon 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.
Gabrielsimon 14:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)