User talk:Wreid

Warning

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.Template:Do not delete --ElKevbo (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the reason I warned you is that your actions (adding the same link to multiple articles, particularly as your first actions at Wikipedia) are typically indicative of someone whose primary interest is in promoting a particular (often commercial) interest. Many editors who add the same material to multiple articles often also have a conflict of interest. So I hope you understand my point of view and why I've done what I've done! --ElKevbo (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I hear you, but if it were me, I would go to the site and see if there was a fit. Wreid (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the pieces now fall into place. I know who you are! And my initial impressions were correct. I'm afraid that I will no longer assume good faith with you as that has proven to be a waste of time in the past. I wish you the best of luck here in Wikipedia but I also advise you that it might be best to stay away from contentious areas where you have a long history of personal conflict. I'm sure that there are many articles here where you can positively contribute without having to worry about your detractors immediately becoming suspicious and difficult. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Have I been disrespectful to you? I did not seek a conflict. IMHO, I posted links to valid sources of Internet research and data. You, apparently without investigation, deleted the links. Some of your deletions were valid given your interpretation of the rules. I am not disputing them. I , factually challenged one of those actions. If that constitutes a conflict I did not provoke it. I merely reacted to your "good faith action". I don't feel at conflict with you. I have no idea who you are and I am not aware that I have ever had a conflict with you. I have found you very reasonable in this discussion. Do I have reason to consider it otherwise? I have no intention of staying away from areas I feel are important, and I will endeavor to avoid conflict. I will certainly not run from it if it is brought to me. Thanks for your advice. By the way I think if you would actually approach me with an open mind you would have a very different impression. Wreid (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Internet research has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Tim1357 (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently we were doing the same thing at the same time. If you look at my notes you will see that I didn't want to reverse his edits. I made an editing mistake and them immediately changed it back to Buridan's edit. Sorry for the confusion. Its amazing that no one questioned the "External Links" section until I posted to it, now everyone wants to remove it. Go Figure! The irony is that I think a link to AOIR is appropriate but only if other such organizations are allowed. So I guess I am "allied" with AOIR's interest. In any event the result is what Buridan wished and I am in agreement. :-) Wreid (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you, perhaps, have a conflict of interest you'd like to share with us? --ElKevbo (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If I have a conflict is is on the side of fairness. AOIR and TCFIR have similar purposes. If AOIR is allowed to self promote (Buridan is a member as you are) then TCFIR should be allowed the same. If not, then neither should. Buridan has a well documented hostility to me personally and it appears that his "conflict of interest" is to not let the TCFIR share the stage. I have said over and over I am not opposed to AOIR and he has done exactly the opposite. It is not my interests you should be questioning. For the record again, I do not have a problem with the External Link section but if AOIR is allowed then TCFIR should not be excluded. If TCFIR is to be excluded then so should AOIR. I am asking for the rules, however interpreted, to be applied equally. Wreid (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh bother I'm very sorry. I think I saw a section deletion and i clicked revert. I must not have seen your edit summary. Apologies : ) Tim1357 (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Where did this take place. In either event I have been warned about reverts and am fearful of making whatevever change might be necessary. Thanks Wreid (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Internet research stub

I am in favor of creating an Intenet research - stub subcategory and putting all the research / studies organizations in it.

Wreid (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Did my colleague in this dispute get warned?

I accept your warning. Wreid (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Blog link at Alexander Halavais

Note that it is proper to link to the official website of an article's subject. See WP:ELYES and WP:ELOFFICIAL. Please refrain from removing it, as it seems to be an act targeting that editor for other actions on this project. --64.7.166.10 (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)