User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2012/November
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
talk page strikeouts
Where do we have guidance that allows for strikeout of another editor's talk page comments simply because they come from a sock? I'm looking at WP:TPO and see nothing that supports such editing. As I understand, strikeout is appropriate to edit out own comments as a method of retracting them. (If the commentary is legitimate in the sense that is supports article improvements, then the strikeout is a form of censorship because it focuses on the editor and not the content.)--S. Rich (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC) PS: Your edit comment referred to a "banned editor". Looks to me that the sock is simply blocked. There is a distinction and difference between the two. (See: WP:BAN.) 04:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)~
- See WP:BAN: "Edits by the [blocked or banned] editor or on his behalf may be reverted without question". Since other editors have commented on the sockpuppet's postings, I have struck them out instead. The point of blocking and banning editors is to prevent them from contributing, because their contributions for one reason or another are disruptive. The sockmaster, Karmaisking was "indefinitely blocked for vandalism, personal attacks, soapboxing, and sockpuppeteering"[1], is on the list of banned editors and his used page says he is banned. It is not as if the comments were made before the editor was banned. TFD (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Please. WP:BAN does not say edits by blocked editors may be reverted without question. It only talks about edits created during a period of banning or blocking. You are expanding the policy too far. The edits were not made during a period of blocking or banning. If such were the policy, it would read "edits made by blocked editors at any time may be reverted..." But it does not say that. Also, where is this list of banned editors and where on his/her user page does it say a ban is in effect? If s/he is on it, I'd be satisfied. But "I'm from Missouri" (or thereabouts). Also, many thanks for your prompt response to my inquiry. (BTW: The Exorcist is coming up on Encore TV soon, so I hope we can hash this out in the next 30 minutes!) --S. Rich (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Correction: I do see where Karmasking is banned! 05:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- All these edits were made by Karmaisking while he was both blocked and banned. Obviously a blocked user cannot make edits using his primary account which is why he creates sockpuppet accounts, in order to get around the block. See Karmaisking's user page which contains a template at the top saying, "This user is banned from editing Wikipedia." The template contains a link to the list of banned editors which can also be found by clicking WP:BU. TFD (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm always happy to learn!, and this has been a most worthwhile discussion. I may/might/perhaps/possibly add the "edits made by banned/blocked editor" to the other strikeout portions. That will clear up that out sock did not do the strikeouts as a means of withdrawing the comments. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- All these edits were made by Karmaisking while he was both blocked and banned. Obviously a blocked user cannot make edits using his primary account which is why he creates sockpuppet accounts, in order to get around the block. See Karmaisking's user page which contains a template at the top saying, "This user is banned from editing Wikipedia." The template contains a link to the list of banned editors which can also be found by clicking WP:BU. TFD (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Please. WP:BAN does not say edits by blocked editors may be reverted without question. It only talks about edits created during a period of banning or blocking. You are expanding the policy too far. The edits were not made during a period of blocking or banning. If such were the policy, it would read "edits made by blocked editors at any time may be reverted..." But it does not say that. Also, where is this list of banned editors and where on his/her user page does it say a ban is in effect? If s/he is on it, I'd be satisfied. But "I'm from Missouri" (or thereabouts). Also, many thanks for your prompt response to my inquiry. (BTW: The Exorcist is coming up on Encore TV soon, so I hope we can hash this out in the next 30 minutes!) --S. Rich (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Correction: I do see where Karmasking is banned! 05:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I added the following after the first strike out:
- Note FRB123 has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Karmaisking [2]. --[my signature]
If you think it would be helpful to add this comment to other sections, then feel free. Hope you enjoy The Exorcist. I saw the re-release at the cinema a few years ago. Hope you enjoy it.
Happy Thanksgiving!
| Happy Thanksgiving, The Four Deuces/Archives/2012! | |
| As we all sit down at the dinner table and say our thanks, I would like to give thanks to you for your wonderful contributions and wish you a very happy Thanksgiving. May your turkey, ham or beast of choice satiate you until next year! TRA! ```Buster Seven Talk 14:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC) |  |
Thanks a lot and hope you had a good Thanksgiving! TFD (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Sucralose
Hi The Four Deuces. I didn't know you were actively maintaining the Sucralose page, or I would have run my edit by you. I'm somewhat familiar with Wikipedia source guidelines, but I will admit I'm not an expert. I am confused as to why my source would be unreliable. I was citing the same website as reference 37, which is being used for the countervailing point and is presumably reliable. The position of the head of the journal originally responsible for publishing the article seems particularly relevant to me. I'd like to hear your thoughts. Bananasandramen (talk) 09:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)