User talk:Valenciano

Your Politically Biased Censorship?

Hello again Valenciano - the page appears to be heavily biased, one wonders why you personally find a 'controversies' section, or even the suggestion of one, so offensive as to censor it? Several similar edits have come from IP addresses within the Houses of Parliament - from users who's talk pages fly 'conservative' or 'liberal democrat' supporters flags.

I'd really like to write an article for the Mail on Sunday on this issue - and since you personally (along with several people working inside the Commons) feel so strongly that a list of 13 suicides by disabled people (attributed by impartial Inquest juries have attributed to either DWP cuts to benefits, or inept Atos assessments that have led to benefit cuts) should not be put on Wiki, I'd be interested to know a) who you are, and b) why you feel it imperative to repeatedly remove this list of suicides under a series of wholly unsupportable ruses without even attempting a discussion? - it breaches none of the Wiki policies you have cited to date. And certainly, blocking pages carrying this content on the eve of the LibDem conference does seem to indicate you feel you have a censorship role.

For all we know, you could be IDS yourself :)

OK

Ok, im sorry for vandalize.... i really wanna change...

Good bye, thanks for your work ;)

--190.158.197.189 (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuccessfully winning

Of course it is possible, as in a Pyrrhic victory... I am not going to say which of the articles I started had that tautology, because I would never make a mistake like that... Thanks for catching it. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of King Pyrrhus' misfortunes but arguably that's successfully winning the battle but (later) losing the war, a bit like a football team needing to win 3-0 etc to avoid relegation and winning 1-0. Valenciano (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Censorship of Ian Duncan Smith's Entry

Forgive me - the IDS edit was originally removed by <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rrius> - he flies the 'Liberal Democrate Supporter' flag - you merely rubber stamped his edit using several inappropriate tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.235.51 (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're still totally missing the point here. Even if Rrius has photos of himself on his user page in lib dem boxers shorts with tattoos of Nick Clegg visible, he's still correct in removing your post. Wikipedia has a very strict policy on what can be written about living people (see WP:BLP) and you're continually violating that.

When no less than five separate editors remove your posts as inappropriate, then maybe it's time to stop shouting censorship and consider that maybe, just maybe, what you're adding is inappropriate?

You claim our removals violated some kind of policy? Which one? WP:NOTFORUM is clear enough: "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article."

WP:TPG says: "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject."

Here's an example of one of your posts: "Personally I think £11m charity would be better spent in the third world, particularly as she's religeous."

You really don't see how that violates that guideline?

Ultimately if you have a problem with editors removing your posts, you can take it up at the Administrators noticeboard. Before you do that though, have a good read of WP:BOOMERANG, i.e. there's a strong chance that you'd find yourself blocked as a result. In the meantime, simply readding the posts back is a waste of your time as they will be removed. Valenciano (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]