User talk:82.34.153.108

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

You really need to read the discussion at ANI and understand the serious misinterpretation you made of the material you tried to insert. If you persist in trying to assert your mistaken interpretation, unfortunately you will quite possibly be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Eagleash (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:.
 * Per the ANI thread. The google links you refer to show this individual equating climate change denial with Holocaust denial. They do not show this individual themselves denying the Holocaust. To repeatedly suggest otherwise is a breach of the policy on biographies of living persons. Appeal options are listed in the template above. Otherwise, you are welcome to resume productive editing when the block expires. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

For deity's sake, it's a simple factual comment: there was an almighty row about Romm's comments, he was accused of Holocaust denial, and responded to those accusations. I haven't given my opinion on that anywhere. It's absurd to try and keep it out, given that it's the what he's now most famous for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.153.108 (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2016‎
 * You really do need to read those articles. There is a massive gap between what he said and what you are claiming. – SchroCat (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What Romm actually wrote was this, this and this. Romm never denied the Holocaust, and no reliable news source stated that he did. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I never said he did. I said he's been accused of it, and that there was a row over it, both of which factual statements you're now agreeing with - to the extent of posting Romm's comments where he discusses precisely those matters. So please have the intellectual honesty to concede that you've been gatekeeping facts you don't like, and that there was never any violation of BLP. You can apologise underneath, and I assume you'll now add the fuss to the page in question, right?
 * Regardless you need to provide an WP:RS (for such a strong claim probably multiple) for these claims. Claiming someone is a holocaust denier may be more serious than claiming someone was accused of being a holocaust denier, but both are BLP violations without sources. AFACT, none of the 3 sources above say the subject was accused of being a holocaust denier. (Just because your comments referring to holocaust deniers are controversial doesn't mean you're going to be accused of being a holocaust denier.) If I missed something, please quote the part I missed where the subject was accused of being a holocaust denier. Your personal opinion or other non RS (e.g. comments on forums, comments on news stories) that someone was accused of being a holocaust denier is of course just as irrelevant as your personal opinion or other non RS that someone is a holocaust denier. Nil Einne (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This is absurd. We have the man's own statements on the fucking subject, in which he responds explicitly to those allegations - your fellow gatekeeper posted them above. There is simply no doubt whatsoever that it happened. Stop this ridiculous racially motivated abuse of Wikipedia's rules. Holocaust Denial may be your bag, but it will not be tolerated any further on this talk page, which is the one place I do have control over.
 * Even if someone accuses someone of something on the internet, it does not mean that the accusation is of encyclopedic interest. Our guideline for biographies of living people WP:BLP includes the following guidance: "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable... and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject."  Also: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Holocaust denial will not be tolerated
To the spate of editors who have left Holocaust denial rants on this page in recent days, I reiterate that this will not be tolerated, and nor will your deletion of this message (as you deleted the previous statement to the same effect).

Threats and incivility
If you accuse me of "racially-motivated abuse" again, I will happily file another report against you at ANI. It should be rather clear, if you read the comments I have left, there has been no abuse, and absolutely nothing "racially-motivated", no matter how you try and twist my words. - SchroCat (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked this IP for 1 week. It is incredibly inappropriate to lash out against those who disagree with you by calling them holocaust-deniers and saying their actions are racially motivated.

If you continue with this nonsense when you get back the next block will be longer. We are a collaborative project and we expect our editors to be treated with a reasonable level of respect. HighInBC 13:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Due to the nature of your comments I have pre-emptively removed talk page access. If you wish to appeal this block you can do so at WP:UTRS. HighInBC 13:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)