User talk:Izabela.edison

May 2013
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Erich von Däniken. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This edit is in Slovenian, and is unsuitable for the English language Wikipedia. According to Google Translate, it says 'What is written above is all true, it is all too superficial and without pressure. The unsatisfactory evidence, and it is quite one-sided. Danika does not actually HARD AND ESPECIALLY emphasizing that these are only a theory, but I think quite appropriately, they must remain THEIR be respected than the other. I only give new possibilities that they are in reality equally likely, as now explained. IF IT IS THEREFORE suppressed only from ethical considerations, because they are some of the facts do not acquiesce BUT WE were extremely unfair. After all, it's comforting to know there is someone who is not so naive and do not believe ALL, exploring further. Ultimately, it is true that I would never ANYTHING discover if they were satisfied with the already detected. THIS CAN ONLY BE AWARE!-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)