| Revision as of 13:47, 16 December 2010 edit69.22.185.187 (talk) →My faults in dealing with Savillo← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:02, 16 December 2010 edit undo69.22.185.187 (talk) →My faults in dealing with SavilloNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| =My faults in dealing with Savillo= | =My faults in dealing with Savillo= | ||
| I can accuse in court , Savillo never wrote this.. why sentence by Savillo????<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | I can accuse in court , Savillo never wrote this.. why sentence by Savillo????<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | ||
| :::User 69.31.68.51 who accused you is now considered as a non existent user ( see red color)... is this a cover up?... this will never stop until there will be revenge.... you are instigating then we will be pursuing | |||
| :The sentence I removed had a to Savillo. If just I said "Sentence removed," the sentence I would be referring to would be ambiguous. I didn't mean to imply anything beyond that. --CaC ] (]) 21:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC) | :The sentence I removed had a to Savillo. If just I said "Sentence removed," the sentence I would be referring to would be ambiguous. I didn't mean to imply anything beyond that. --CaC ] (]) 21:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC) | ||
| I don't think so. You did that directly sacrificing someone's name when he doesn't even know that his name is being cited. This still needs to be heard. You have to pay for it. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | I don't think so. You did that directly sacrificing someone's name when he doesn't even know that his name is being cited. This still needs to be heard. You have to pay for it. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
Revision as of 14:02, 16 December 2010
My faults in dealing with Savillo
I can accuse in court , Savillo never wrote this.. why sentence by Savillo????— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.68.51 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- User 69.31.68.51 who accused you is now considered as a non existent user ( see red color)... is this a cover up?... this will never stop until there will be revenge.... you are instigating then we will be pursuing
- The sentence I removed had a citation to Savillo. If just I said "Sentence removed," the sentence I would be referring to would be ambiguous. I didn't mean to imply anything beyond that. --CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so. You did that directly sacrificing someone's name when he doesn't even know that his name is being cited. This still needs to be heard. You have to pay for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.185.186 (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- To CaC 155.99.230.57:
- I'm not sure what's going on here, and I'm definitely not involved, but this kind of sounds like a threat that you might want to report to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or an administrator.--CurtisSwain (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- CaC, I responded to your query on my talk page. CurtisSwain's recommendation is also very appropriate—especially given the follow-up post here that I did not see before. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- I already reported the stupidity of CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) to the wikipedia's noticeboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.185.187 (talk) 08:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Here it is: the consequence of being stupid:http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#CaC_155.99.230.57_.28talk.29_grave_errors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.185.189 (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- CaC 155.99.230.57 recklessly committed a grave mistake by labeling that Savillo wrote that statement implying IPCC as the major foe in addition to the other ideas stated in that removed statement but when you read the comment of savillo that represents the reference for that removed statement there is no mention of IPCC there as well as other ideas stated in the removed statement... CaC has to to be punished outside of the wikipedia rules...we have been very observant about this....
Harvard Review
what are you talking about this harvard review you sucking skunk... what we need are information about what is happening in each country! you probably wants to smell ur vagina in the process or ill trust a sword on it.