Pipedija - tautosaka, gandai, kliedesiai ir jokios tiesos! Durniausia wiki enciklopedija durnapedija!
Aptarimas:Snookeris: Skirtumas tarp puslapio versijų
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Naujas puslapis: Этот чувак пишет, что ему принадлежит аккаунт Tomreves в русской Википедии, который блокировался за яв...) |
|||
| 2 eilutė: | 2 eilutė: | ||
According to this guy, account Tomreves on the Russian Wikipedia, blocked a few times for downright vandalism, belongs to him. This can be mentioned too. | According to this guy, account Tomreves on the Russian Wikipedia, blocked a few times for downright vandalism, belongs to him. This can be mentioned too. | ||
::According to our sources, the above-mentioned user was not involved in any of your mentioned vandalisms, he was involved in editting your pages so that they could be as truthful as possible. For example, [http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9F%D1%83%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD,_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&diff=prev&oldid=19849441 this edit] is truthful so it is not considered as vandalism. Also, such renamings as [http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%94%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&diff=prev&oldid=19896929 this edit] according to our sources in Russian Wikipedia, is also not considered vandalism as the above-mentioned user has expressed his scientific prediction of might be. The user's edits were reverted not because they were vandalism but because there were some inconsistencies with the dates given in the articles. [[Naudotojas:Atlantas|Atlantas]] 21:03, 2011 liepos 24 (BST) | |||
Dabartinė 23:03, 24 liepos 2011 versija
Этот чувак пишет, что ему принадлежит аккаунт Tomreves в русской Википедии, который блокировался за явный вандализм. Можете написать об этом.
According to this guy, account Tomreves on the Russian Wikipedia, blocked a few times for downright vandalism, belongs to him. This can be mentioned too.
- According to our sources, the above-mentioned user was not involved in any of your mentioned vandalisms, he was involved in editting your pages so that they could be as truthful as possible. For example, this edit is truthful so it is not considered as vandalism. Also, such renamings as this edit according to our sources in Russian Wikipedia, is also not considered vandalism as the above-mentioned user has expressed his scientific prediction of might be. The user's edits were reverted not because they were vandalism but because there were some inconsistencies with the dates given in the articles. Atlantas 21:03, 2011 liepos 24 (BST)