Your behavior, particularly the removal of comments from talk pages, is extremely close to vandalism. Please stop, and please also refer to WT:CFI for our definition of durable sources: print and Usenet are acceptable, but random internet screeds are not. -- Visviva 06:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is your second warning. Do not remove other people's comments. This is unacceptable and you will be blocked if you continue. Nadando 07:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS
Look at the history please. I am editing my own comments. I was the one who brought this page here, created it entirely and endure removal of all but scientology sense edits to what was authorized by Wiktionary editors when page passed RFV in October.
I am only editing it for the RFV tag.
Who removed the RFV and RFC tags Visviva?
Please use the obnosis Talk pages before making wide slicing edits Visviva per protocol.
Are you editors or censors? Editors educate and coordinate corrections for misunderstandings assuming that users are providing community service to at one day be Administrators. They do not also do hatchet swipes that selectively leave newsgroup citations for instance (for scientology only sense) while removing completely acceptable FQDN sites that are durable sources from more than 2 years, which also equate to correct rules for Wiktionary? Lisakachold 08:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The only way for you to change what is in the Wiktionary entry is to provide the cites that you claim exist supporting your definition. If you can't or won't do this, then please accept that that page has been edited to conform to Wiktionary's policy. If you don't accept Wiktioanry's policy, then it is probably not a website you should waste any more time of your on. At the moment you are irritating a lot of people and are likely to end up blocked for causing disruption. Conrad.Irwin 13:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)