User talk:Michele.mostarda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conosci il punto di vista neutrale? Vatti a leggere WP:NPOV, perché tu con il tuo edit non fai altro che andare contro una delle tre policy base di Wikipedia. Le critiche e le esaltazioni nei confronti di Veltroni rimangano fuori da qui, per cortesia. --Angelo 15:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Più che un censore fascista (un bell'attacco personale tra l'altro, ma chiuderò un occhio per ora) sono un amministratore e mi limito a far rispettare le policies. E se reinserisci quella roba potresti violare la three-revert rule, quindi vacci cauto. Se vuoi discutere l'inclusione delle tue critiche personali a Veltroni, usa Talk:Walter Veltroni e apri una discussione. And please use English when you're specifying edit summaries next time, okay?!? I hope I've been clear enough. Thank you. --Angelo 16:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Angelo.Romano,

 my comments are simply a try to raise and make notable a common sense of insatisfaction

Well, Wikipedia is not a blog, and not a forum for unregulated free speech. If you are not satisfied with Veltroni's administration, send him an email, make a post on your own blog, start a discussion on a forum or whatever, but pleae discuss it outside Wikipedia. We can only include sourceable and verifiable facts, not opinions. --Angelo 17:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debate Repression

Dear Angelo.Romano,

my comments are simply a try to raise and make notable a common sense of dissatisfaction that everybody living in this country feels.

This dissatisfaction is placed here because the Person this page talks about is the candidate to represent a movement that on the paper should be what we was expecting...

These Pages ( as a Computer Scientist! should know ) were meant with a big feeling of sharing and democracy and a little break to the RULES could allow people like us ( the nobody's ) to powerfully express our opinions and raise a good dialectic.

So what I ask you is to stop to suffocate the ONLY CHANCE I HAVE to say something and start thinking and answering without use somebody's else links to argumentations that kill debate and then the real democracy.

What you're doing is to REPRESS INFORMATION because my stuff (what you said "roba") is a verifiable bunch of facts.

What you have to do is simply to let other people to judge my considerations and eventually revert it.

Are you able to apply a real debate? Or you are the only person able to distinguish between the truth and the fabrication?

If you say they're verifiable and sourceable, please give me reliable and neutral sources (newspaper articles, web links, whatever). If you fail this, you're just disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Your goal differs from Wikipedia's goal to be just an encyclopedia, not a place of discussion. If you don't agree with this, you leave me no chance. --Angelo 17:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Life is different from what I can read on newspapers, so I think mine is only imagination.

PS: I sent him a mail, hironically the mail server response was: "Mailbox disk quota exceeded" i.e. anybody reads this mail :) .