It strongly looks like you’re making things up lol
It is trivial to check what changes someone did or didn’t make 10 years ago on Wikipedia, if you know which page of Wikipedia it was on. Which page was it on?
My dude it was ten years ago, I looked up “Sällskapsresan” and that’s it. Maybe it was 14 years ago or 12.
If you’re intetested in interesting truths, check out the 4 films (les bronzés “3” wasn’t made for a long time, and sällskapsresan 3 was thus not a copy/stolen and utterly bad) and when they wete made.
Wait, so up there it looks like the actual truth is not “Some years later I tried again but you could no longer make changes IIRC. Just checked, info still missing.” but in fact that the exact information is already in the article.
Glad we had this talk lol. I mean it’s a pretty trivial thing to get upset about even if it were true, I can somewhat believe that some random person might have reverted your edits for bad reasons, but I am wholly unsurprised to learn that there was no grand conspiracy and the information in the article has been corrected now even though you specifically said that it wasn’t.
It was like 10 years ago.
Well, you still managed to check it, no?
The DVD ad was from ten years ago. My attempt to change things was from ten years ago. The blatant stealing/copying is still missing.
Which article is this?
No article, Wikipedia.
It strongly looks like you’re making things up lol
It is trivial to check what changes someone did or didn’t make 10 years ago on Wikipedia, if you know which page of Wikipedia it was on. Which page was it on?
My dude it was ten years ago, I looked up “Sällskapsresan” and that’s it. Maybe it was 14 years ago or 12.
If you’re intetested in interesting truths, check out the 4 films (les bronzés “3” wasn’t made for a long time, and sällskapsresan 3 was thus not a copy/stolen and utterly bad) and when they wete made.
Wait, so up there it looks like the actual truth is not “Some years later I tried again but you could no longer make changes IIRC. Just checked, info still missing.” but in fact that the exact information is already in the article.
Glad we had this talk lol. I mean it’s a pretty trivial thing to get upset about even if it were true, I can somewhat believe that some random person might have reverted your edits for bad reasons, but I am wholly unsurprised to learn that there was no grand conspiracy and the information in the article has been corrected now even though you specifically said that it wasn’t.
You must be a fun person at parties.