ISTAT
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Vsmith (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Welcome
edit
|
Removing comments from Talk: pages.
editYou recently deleted a bunch of comments from Talk:Oxyhydrogen. This edit has been reverted. You should be aware that it is only acceptable to remove comments from talk pages under very specific situations - which this did not meet. Please don't do that again! SteveBaker (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC) Only 5 lines removed bacause of insulting words. Could you explain under which circumstances these words can be removed?? My understanding is the following as per a recent post by Qwyrxian :
Please re-read WP:COI. Your interpretation of it is flat out wrong. In fact the policy encourages people with COI to add their opinions on talk pages about how to improve articles. That's much better than having them edit articles directly; but, technically, COI doesn't even forbid that! Second, you may not remove people's comments from a talk page for having a COI. The only time you can remove comments is when the person is 1) vandalizing, 2) violating WP:BLP (and that's a tricky one), or 3) soapboxing about something not related to the article itself. In this case, the editor was clearly and directly pointing out things xe believes need to be changed in the article. Now, those changes may be wrong, and the request certainly wasn't phrased ideally, but that does not allow you to remove them. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Nobody can deny that the lines I have removed about Santilli being a quack, nutter and more was not a violation on BLT. I have been asking to have them removed before and my entire posts were removed. Please explain how Wikipedia justifies having these insult remain in the discussion page. I have a request for clarification also in the administrator page and an e-mail to Wikimedia. Thank you if you help me to work on these issues since, honestly I need guidance for someone more expert than me. ISTAT (talk)ISTATISTAT (talk)
ISTAT (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked for having tried to removed the following sentence from the Oxyhydrogen discussion".Words that come to mind are: quack, nutter, lunatic, paranoid, delusional, and so on. I think "fringe scientist" would be the more reasonable, and more polite term. The one thing we don't want to do is mislead our readers into believing this fellow is credible. If you would like to suggest alternative wording appropriated for an encyclopedia, please share. Rklawton , May 16, 2011" this sentence should have been removed immediately as a violation of BLP. Several people have tried to have it removed by they were all blocked invoking the sock puppet policy. I do not know Kaufmann 111 . The real issue is not sock puppetry, but the maintenance on a discussion page of insulting words to a living person that violates Wikipedia policy. ISTAT ISTAT (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Sock puppetry is relevant as it is the reason you have been blocked. In this case, it is confirmed by a checkuser. Kuru (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.