Hello. You posted a block message on their talk page, but it seems like you forgot to actually block them. Thomas.W talk 15:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Is it acceptable to remove a discussion from an article talk page, [1] especially when the discussion is of relevance to explaining the many recent reverts? Thank you. LRD NO ( talk) 16:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I think you're reading G10 a bit too narrowly here; the "unsourced" requirement applies only to "biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced", and the article here qualifies both as libel and as intended to disparage a (presumably) living person. And the references are entirely phony; none mention the (supposed) Francisco Group or anyone named Francisco. (And the supposed Filipino gang emblem turns out to be a photo of a sculpture in a temple in Japan). I'm not quite sure what's going on here, but I see no reason to doubt that this is not a legitimate article. Could you give it another look? Thanks, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 17:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I think you're right that a certain amount of intent is what separates neutral speech from something more sinister; if I call another editor a "turtle" because they took too long to do something they promised, it would be completely drama-free. But I can also pretty easily think of scenarios where if a user repeatedly added "The subject of this article is a monkey from Africa" on certain sensitive BLPs, they could garner a block on the words alone. I can also see where if editors were calling each other snakes or pigs, there'd be no serious argument that something was at least "off". I think that talk page is a mess of juvenile behavior and weird double-standards (I mean, if I went to any celebrity BLP and started leaving comments about what I thought the BLP's genitalia was like, it would rightfully get scrubbed on sight. Same as if I repeatedly said "X-celebrity-known-as-a-man is a woman".). I think the "hate speech" claim is distracting from the actual basic disruption that's going on. Maybe I'll just leave it alone unless it gets obnoxious. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I don't normally use this template on my own talk page, however I do not want to continue this discussion. I am going to summaries my position and close this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks for your kindly welcome-massage. And I think I need for your help. I saw User:Ryulong said User:LungZeno is a "meatpuppet" few days ago, because LungZeno has wrote HongKong as a country. I believe this is absolutely ridiculous, because in the daily life of HongKonger, we often says this. It is a very very normal thing and cannot proof the behavior is as similar as a "meatpuppet", otherwise, many many HongKongers will all become "meatpuppet"! So I try to tell what I know in my dailylife. After that, Ryulong undo my speech many times without any reasonable reason, but just threaten and scolded me again and again. He even says I have no right to speech the truth on wikipedia. He seems to monitoring me of my contributions, and undo my speech or scold me at once, everytime after I asked for help or saying the truth that I know. I don't know what I can do now. Sorry for bothering you.-- Tvb10data ( talk) 17:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I have not edit any wikipedia article, but just says this is not a "sufficiently similar behavior" for proofing someone as a meatpuppet. Then User:Ryulong undo my speech and scolded me that I will be banned. This happens repeatly, and I don't know what can I do for stopping him. :(
Even other people do not agree with me, I don't think what I do is breaking Wikipedia's rules, and should be treated as what Ryulong did-- Tvb10data ( talk) 18:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC) reply
11:15 am Paris Tues. 16th Sep. 2014
To Chefallen,
Please inform me how I can send messages to you in the correct manner via Wikipedia, and also how to use the Talk page for Tekhelet. BTW, all the correspondence you have written plus edits, deletions and changes have been recorded. I keep excellent records. Jurisprudence and issues of truth and justice interest me greatly. As a litigant I won a very important court case on Feb. 2nd 1998 at the Melbourne Magistrates Court. (There was twelve months of preparation for the case ! I defeated two QC's) My grandfather was a well respected solicitor in Bendigo, Victoria, Australia.
Anyway let me go through a few things with you now...I will respond to your little asides and put downs. (Not sure who is paying you either. It would be fun to meet you face to face in a bar for a little chat nu...) Your writings begin with C : Mine are prefaced with AN :
C: Adam, you have an opinion about tekhelet
AN : Gee thanks for the condescension. I don't need or seek your validation. G-d knows what I am up to.
C : and that's fine. You might even be able to find
AN : “Even be able to find”...Wow ! You make it sound as if everyone wears the blue thread. Go to the Western Wall of the Old City on a Friday Shabbat and count the number of observant Jewish men who are wearing tzitizit. You will see maybe 2% maximum who wear the blue thread. I’ve spoken to various Rabbis and their assistants over the last six months about the issue. I visited Lederman’s Shul in Bnei Brak on the afternoons of the 28th and 29th May for five hours total. You must be aware that Rav. Chaim Kanievsky has not made a psak on this issue.
C: support for your contention that "there is no unanimous decision by all of the current leading Jewish sages that the claims of the Ptil Tekhelet organisation are true" if you were to go about adding this to the article in an encyclopaedic way
AN : What is an “encyclopaedic way”. You are trying to undermine my presentation by getting bogged down in semantics. Sabotage by pedantry and nit picking.
C : that is, adding the statement in a neutral tone of voice
AN : What is a neutral tone of voice when writing ? Your use of language is very poor. Of course when you are presenting evidence to a court you present facts. A fact is not “neutral”. It is just that. A fact !
C : and citing reliable sources, (not yourself) or your original research.
AN : In a court of law evidence is presented by witnesses, prosecutors and defenders. The evidence can be in the form of written words, witnesses, objects, DNA etc. etc. On all these counts in front of an honest judge with my claims on tekhelet I will be proven to be a “Reliable Source”.
C. However, what is not fine is the following: Disruptive editing[edit] Deleting sourced statements such as [1], [2] and adding material sourced to or referring to yourself, such as here: [3], [4] ; see WP:COS is disruptive editing and unacceptable.
AN : Any typographical errors I have made or with editing errors are a result of unfamiliarity with the Wikipedia platform. But the factual, content rich parts of my updates are correct. They are not “Disruptive Editing”.
C : Soapboxing An article is not a discussion forum or a platform for your personal views. So adding long (or even short) commentary such as [5] is unacceptable.
AN : When discussing certain complex subjects especially ones as esoteric and clouded in mystery as Tekhelet, one must present certain commentaries. A responsa in Jewish law IS a form of commentary/counsel.
C : Sockpuppetry If you edit an article using your user name, then using your IP address User:87.91.50.226 to repeatedly make the same edits that have been challenged by other users is in contravention of the Wikepedia policy on sockpuppetry.
AN : If you read the history of my edits, you will see that only in my eagerness to present my findings did I edit via an IP Address without logging in. This was a result of enthusiasm not an effort to be anonymous. FYI, over the last 14 years I have been actively presenting my counsel on a vast range of subjests on many media platforms all around the world. I am proud to say I always use my real, legal name. Unlike others I don’t snipe from afar.
C : "Ownership" Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars andpersonal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. No-one owns an article. So telling me "Please desist from editing my revisions to the "Tekhelet" page" and "Desist forthwith from removing my edits/updates" is way out of line.
AN : Interestingly, the Intellectual Property for making tekhelet in the first place was private. Someone, i.e. the High Priests family, did own the Intellectual Property. When the truth comes out about Tekhelet and how it was rediscovered the Wikipedia Page willn need to reflect this. If Wikipedia is to be reputable form of media it must protect the rights of various companies and organisations to their intellectual property. You will not find various pieces of confidential information, e.g. the secret recipe for Coca Cola on Wikipedia. When you are slandered, libelled or defamed it is quite within your right to stand up to the abuse. Also, you should maybe look up the concept of lesee majeste.
C : Threatening other users. Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. It's completely unacceptable to make direct or indirect threats such as "A warning to you...Be very careful who you cast aspersions on" as here: [6] and [7] and here [8]. See above; you do not own the article and do not have the authority to tell another editor not to edit it. That behavior constitutes bullying, violates the civility principles of Wikipedia and is not tolerated.
AN : You are being disingenous. Trying to suggest that by defending myself and my findings from slander, deletion, silencing and abuse that is somehow bullying. You are trying to frame the debate and use the “rules” of Wikipedia to fix the outcome. Thus it is not a fair court hearing. See the following article for how someone, i.e. MK Litzman also tried to “set someone up”. www.timesofisrael.com/lipman-denies-making-death-threat-against-haredi-mk/ I am also a very polite and civil person, but one must react to abuse on one’s person...
C : September 2014 You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. I've reverted your edits to the article based on all of the above and as noted in the edit comments. If you want to change something in the article, open a discussion on the talk page and state what you want there. If you gain consensus from other editors, we can add it in. If you simply revert to your changes again, I will take this case to the administrators with the request that you be banned from editing Wikipedia as someone who does not seem to be willing to work collaboratively and within the policies of Wikipedia. Chefallen(talk) 02:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
AN : I repeat...I am happy to work within the parameters of Wikipedia, if it is a fair court setting, and my findings and research can be presented, so please inform me how the Talk forum works.
How does one access it ?
Is it a “to and fro” process ?
Does one post one’s questions then they are answered ?
I await your responses to my questions here.
I repeat...I keep extensive, detailed notes of all important events and proceedings in my life. It is a habit I have developed since a young man. G-d loves truth and justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamNeira ( talk • contribs) 20:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I noticed that, recently you blocked Rajesh Khadka447. The IP used by him is a shared IP of a mobile company Ncell (I guess because I could not edit from Ncell network). I have also got affected by that autoblock. Can that autoblock be lifted? — Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 04:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Hello. I have noticed three issues with your edits on the talk page for Wikipedia talk:Edit warring, and I'm coming here to raise them with you in order to resolve them. If we can't resolve them, I'm afraid I'll have to escalate this matter.
Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 04:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Thank you for removing his attacks on me. Caden cool 22:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Thanks for Your unexpected but very welcommed help ! Much appriciated. I've made a (long) reply myself, thanks again. Boeing720 ( talk) 07:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I also thank You for these advices. I do not think I've looked to becomming examind. But I made an error of making a too long defence. (too late now) But I will keep Your advices in in mind for the future. Thanks again ! Boeing720 ( talk) 03:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reply
That you're finding edits of mine on random articles that you can revert is not surprising at all, given your previous behavior in our interactions. LHM ask me a question 14:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply
"Please go away"? That's not very civil of you Chillum; I suggest you try and practise what you preach. Cassianto talk 16:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Just reading through the other threads and noting the stinking hypocrisy of your posts, that's all. I have moved on, unlike you who still keeps mentioning it. Cassianto talk 16:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Don't remove other people's posts from WikiProject talk pages, especially projects where you're not even a member. Nobody appointed you guardian of what notifications can be seen by members of WikiProject Medicine. The members of the project are quite capable of judging for ourselves whether we are in a position to comment usefully in an ANI thread, and I object very strongly to your assumption that you know better. Take this as a warning for your future conduct. -- RexxS ( talk) 01:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC) reply
You can think whatever you like about the warning: your removal of other editors posts outside of policy is a disruptive violation of WP:TPO. Hopefully that's clear enough for you to understand. There is nothing in CANVASS that precludes a member of a project notifying the project of an issue that may affect their work for that project. If you assert otherwise, you'd better be prepared to quote the guidance that supports your claim. In addition, there is nothing in CANVASS that gives you the right to remove posts that you think are inappropriate - that would lead to anarchy. Follow the guidance at CANVASS if you are concerned. Maybe you need to diligently re-read that guidance before you commit any further faux pas? -- RexxS ( talk) 02:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC) reply
About this thread and in particular this edit by you. Please see WP:TPG and in particular the section on editing other editors' comments. Can you find any justification for your deletion there? I cannot. From my perspective and pretty much every experienced editor here, deleting someone else's comment as you did is 100% out of line. If you continue to do things like that you will get blocked and possibly banned. It is disruptive. Jytdog ( talk) 17:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Hello. You posted a block message on their talk page, but it seems like you forgot to actually block them. Thomas.W talk 15:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Is it acceptable to remove a discussion from an article talk page, [1] especially when the discussion is of relevance to explaining the many recent reverts? Thank you. LRD NO ( talk) 16:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I think you're reading G10 a bit too narrowly here; the "unsourced" requirement applies only to "biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced", and the article here qualifies both as libel and as intended to disparage a (presumably) living person. And the references are entirely phony; none mention the (supposed) Francisco Group or anyone named Francisco. (And the supposed Filipino gang emblem turns out to be a photo of a sculpture in a temple in Japan). I'm not quite sure what's going on here, but I see no reason to doubt that this is not a legitimate article. Could you give it another look? Thanks, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 17:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I think you're right that a certain amount of intent is what separates neutral speech from something more sinister; if I call another editor a "turtle" because they took too long to do something they promised, it would be completely drama-free. But I can also pretty easily think of scenarios where if a user repeatedly added "The subject of this article is a monkey from Africa" on certain sensitive BLPs, they could garner a block on the words alone. I can also see where if editors were calling each other snakes or pigs, there'd be no serious argument that something was at least "off". I think that talk page is a mess of juvenile behavior and weird double-standards (I mean, if I went to any celebrity BLP and started leaving comments about what I thought the BLP's genitalia was like, it would rightfully get scrubbed on sight. Same as if I repeatedly said "X-celebrity-known-as-a-man is a woman".). I think the "hate speech" claim is distracting from the actual basic disruption that's going on. Maybe I'll just leave it alone unless it gets obnoxious. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I don't normally use this template on my own talk page, however I do not want to continue this discussion. I am going to summaries my position and close this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks for your kindly welcome-massage. And I think I need for your help. I saw User:Ryulong said User:LungZeno is a "meatpuppet" few days ago, because LungZeno has wrote HongKong as a country. I believe this is absolutely ridiculous, because in the daily life of HongKonger, we often says this. It is a very very normal thing and cannot proof the behavior is as similar as a "meatpuppet", otherwise, many many HongKongers will all become "meatpuppet"! So I try to tell what I know in my dailylife. After that, Ryulong undo my speech many times without any reasonable reason, but just threaten and scolded me again and again. He even says I have no right to speech the truth on wikipedia. He seems to monitoring me of my contributions, and undo my speech or scold me at once, everytime after I asked for help or saying the truth that I know. I don't know what I can do now. Sorry for bothering you.-- Tvb10data ( talk) 17:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I have not edit any wikipedia article, but just says this is not a "sufficiently similar behavior" for proofing someone as a meatpuppet. Then User:Ryulong undo my speech and scolded me that I will be banned. This happens repeatly, and I don't know what can I do for stopping him. :(
Even other people do not agree with me, I don't think what I do is breaking Wikipedia's rules, and should be treated as what Ryulong did-- Tvb10data ( talk) 18:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC) reply
11:15 am Paris Tues. 16th Sep. 2014
To Chefallen,
Please inform me how I can send messages to you in the correct manner via Wikipedia, and also how to use the Talk page for Tekhelet. BTW, all the correspondence you have written plus edits, deletions and changes have been recorded. I keep excellent records. Jurisprudence and issues of truth and justice interest me greatly. As a litigant I won a very important court case on Feb. 2nd 1998 at the Melbourne Magistrates Court. (There was twelve months of preparation for the case ! I defeated two QC's) My grandfather was a well respected solicitor in Bendigo, Victoria, Australia.
Anyway let me go through a few things with you now...I will respond to your little asides and put downs. (Not sure who is paying you either. It would be fun to meet you face to face in a bar for a little chat nu...) Your writings begin with C : Mine are prefaced with AN :
C: Adam, you have an opinion about tekhelet
AN : Gee thanks for the condescension. I don't need or seek your validation. G-d knows what I am up to.
C : and that's fine. You might even be able to find
AN : “Even be able to find”...Wow ! You make it sound as if everyone wears the blue thread. Go to the Western Wall of the Old City on a Friday Shabbat and count the number of observant Jewish men who are wearing tzitizit. You will see maybe 2% maximum who wear the blue thread. I’ve spoken to various Rabbis and their assistants over the last six months about the issue. I visited Lederman’s Shul in Bnei Brak on the afternoons of the 28th and 29th May for five hours total. You must be aware that Rav. Chaim Kanievsky has not made a psak on this issue.
C: support for your contention that "there is no unanimous decision by all of the current leading Jewish sages that the claims of the Ptil Tekhelet organisation are true" if you were to go about adding this to the article in an encyclopaedic way
AN : What is an “encyclopaedic way”. You are trying to undermine my presentation by getting bogged down in semantics. Sabotage by pedantry and nit picking.
C : that is, adding the statement in a neutral tone of voice
AN : What is a neutral tone of voice when writing ? Your use of language is very poor. Of course when you are presenting evidence to a court you present facts. A fact is not “neutral”. It is just that. A fact !
C : and citing reliable sources, (not yourself) or your original research.
AN : In a court of law evidence is presented by witnesses, prosecutors and defenders. The evidence can be in the form of written words, witnesses, objects, DNA etc. etc. On all these counts in front of an honest judge with my claims on tekhelet I will be proven to be a “Reliable Source”.
C. However, what is not fine is the following: Disruptive editing[edit] Deleting sourced statements such as [1], [2] and adding material sourced to or referring to yourself, such as here: [3], [4] ; see WP:COS is disruptive editing and unacceptable.
AN : Any typographical errors I have made or with editing errors are a result of unfamiliarity with the Wikipedia platform. But the factual, content rich parts of my updates are correct. They are not “Disruptive Editing”.
C : Soapboxing An article is not a discussion forum or a platform for your personal views. So adding long (or even short) commentary such as [5] is unacceptable.
AN : When discussing certain complex subjects especially ones as esoteric and clouded in mystery as Tekhelet, one must present certain commentaries. A responsa in Jewish law IS a form of commentary/counsel.
C : Sockpuppetry If you edit an article using your user name, then using your IP address User:87.91.50.226 to repeatedly make the same edits that have been challenged by other users is in contravention of the Wikepedia policy on sockpuppetry.
AN : If you read the history of my edits, you will see that only in my eagerness to present my findings did I edit via an IP Address without logging in. This was a result of enthusiasm not an effort to be anonymous. FYI, over the last 14 years I have been actively presenting my counsel on a vast range of subjests on many media platforms all around the world. I am proud to say I always use my real, legal name. Unlike others I don’t snipe from afar.
C : "Ownership" Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars andpersonal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. No-one owns an article. So telling me "Please desist from editing my revisions to the "Tekhelet" page" and "Desist forthwith from removing my edits/updates" is way out of line.
AN : Interestingly, the Intellectual Property for making tekhelet in the first place was private. Someone, i.e. the High Priests family, did own the Intellectual Property. When the truth comes out about Tekhelet and how it was rediscovered the Wikipedia Page willn need to reflect this. If Wikipedia is to be reputable form of media it must protect the rights of various companies and organisations to their intellectual property. You will not find various pieces of confidential information, e.g. the secret recipe for Coca Cola on Wikipedia. When you are slandered, libelled or defamed it is quite within your right to stand up to the abuse. Also, you should maybe look up the concept of lesee majeste.
C : Threatening other users. Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. It's completely unacceptable to make direct or indirect threats such as "A warning to you...Be very careful who you cast aspersions on" as here: [6] and [7] and here [8]. See above; you do not own the article and do not have the authority to tell another editor not to edit it. That behavior constitutes bullying, violates the civility principles of Wikipedia and is not tolerated.
AN : You are being disingenous. Trying to suggest that by defending myself and my findings from slander, deletion, silencing and abuse that is somehow bullying. You are trying to frame the debate and use the “rules” of Wikipedia to fix the outcome. Thus it is not a fair court hearing. See the following article for how someone, i.e. MK Litzman also tried to “set someone up”. www.timesofisrael.com/lipman-denies-making-death-threat-against-haredi-mk/ I am also a very polite and civil person, but one must react to abuse on one’s person...
C : September 2014 You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. I've reverted your edits to the article based on all of the above and as noted in the edit comments. If you want to change something in the article, open a discussion on the talk page and state what you want there. If you gain consensus from other editors, we can add it in. If you simply revert to your changes again, I will take this case to the administrators with the request that you be banned from editing Wikipedia as someone who does not seem to be willing to work collaboratively and within the policies of Wikipedia. Chefallen(talk) 02:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
AN : I repeat...I am happy to work within the parameters of Wikipedia, if it is a fair court setting, and my findings and research can be presented, so please inform me how the Talk forum works.
How does one access it ?
Is it a “to and fro” process ?
Does one post one’s questions then they are answered ?
I await your responses to my questions here.
I repeat...I keep extensive, detailed notes of all important events and proceedings in my life. It is a habit I have developed since a young man. G-d loves truth and justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamNeira ( talk • contribs) 20:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I noticed that, recently you blocked Rajesh Khadka447. The IP used by him is a shared IP of a mobile company Ncell (I guess because I could not edit from Ncell network). I have also got affected by that autoblock. Can that autoblock be lifted? — Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 04:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Hello. I have noticed three issues with your edits on the talk page for Wikipedia talk:Edit warring, and I'm coming here to raise them with you in order to resolve them. If we can't resolve them, I'm afraid I'll have to escalate this matter.
Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 04:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Thank you for removing his attacks on me. Caden cool 22:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Thanks for Your unexpected but very welcommed help ! Much appriciated. I've made a (long) reply myself, thanks again. Boeing720 ( talk) 07:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I also thank You for these advices. I do not think I've looked to becomming examind. But I made an error of making a too long defence. (too late now) But I will keep Your advices in in mind for the future. Thanks again ! Boeing720 ( talk) 03:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reply
That you're finding edits of mine on random articles that you can revert is not surprising at all, given your previous behavior in our interactions. LHM ask me a question 14:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC) reply
"Please go away"? That's not very civil of you Chillum; I suggest you try and practise what you preach. Cassianto talk 16:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Just reading through the other threads and noting the stinking hypocrisy of your posts, that's all. I have moved on, unlike you who still keeps mentioning it. Cassianto talk 16:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Don't remove other people's posts from WikiProject talk pages, especially projects where you're not even a member. Nobody appointed you guardian of what notifications can be seen by members of WikiProject Medicine. The members of the project are quite capable of judging for ourselves whether we are in a position to comment usefully in an ANI thread, and I object very strongly to your assumption that you know better. Take this as a warning for your future conduct. -- RexxS ( talk) 01:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC) reply
You can think whatever you like about the warning: your removal of other editors posts outside of policy is a disruptive violation of WP:TPO. Hopefully that's clear enough for you to understand. There is nothing in CANVASS that precludes a member of a project notifying the project of an issue that may affect their work for that project. If you assert otherwise, you'd better be prepared to quote the guidance that supports your claim. In addition, there is nothing in CANVASS that gives you the right to remove posts that you think are inappropriate - that would lead to anarchy. Follow the guidance at CANVASS if you are concerned. Maybe you need to diligently re-read that guidance before you commit any further faux pas? -- RexxS ( talk) 02:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC) reply
About this thread and in particular this edit by you. Please see WP:TPG and in particular the section on editing other editors' comments. Can you find any justification for your deletion there? I cannot. From my perspective and pretty much every experienced editor here, deleting someone else's comment as you did is 100% out of line. If you continue to do things like that you will get blocked and possibly banned. It is disruptive. Jytdog ( talk) 17:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC) reply