User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello, I'm Tedickey. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. TEDickey (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. TEDickey (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, now you're just being silly.[edit]

It's bad enough that this ip's primary contribution has been to add links to on pages having nothing at all to do with the Thomas Legion. This has the appearance of adding spam-like links (which you should read). I noticed these insertions myself but hadn't yet reverted them. Then User:Tedickey calls you on this, and instead of accepting your just deserts, you go on a deletion spree, deleting external links perfectly acceptable under WP:EXT; links not inserted by a single user for the apparent purpose to drive traffic to one specific website. Your most recent deletion edits constitute a violation of WP:POINT (which you might also read). If you continue to act in this unconstructive manner, you run the risk of getting WP:BLACKLISTED (which you should also read). Please consider taking a break. BusterD (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Below comment is directed to BusterD[edit]

Numerous links removed by me were indeed in violation of WP:EXT; one was in Chinese for an American Civil War battle (really now), numerous other links were broken (violation here?), others duplicated article content and added nothing new, while even more were complete SPAM with multiple pop-ups. So if you are going to accuse, be specific please, post the links, instead of hiding behind a rant and making baseless accusations. You can also say the sky is orange? Does it make it orange? For anyone reading this, simply click on my IP address and review my edits for clarification.

One website was singled out by you, which, by the way, added relevant links (new content, etc.), and ALL links were removed unjustly and without merit.

If you could point out each link that was deleted unjustly by me, however, it would asssist. Furthermore, your blanket statement about "links perfectly acceptablte under Wikipedia" were removed (without giving me one example) by me shows that you did not review the deleted links by me, period. So, according to you, BusterD, the Chinese link in external link section for an American Civil War battle is acceptable according to Wiki standards? The numerous BROKEN links, that I removed, were also acceptable according to Wikipedia? BusterD, you have no credibility, man.

AND to single out a "domain name" just because of the domain name, is contrary to all things Wikipedia - it is against Wikipedia policy. You also know this and have made a false statement. Yes, false. Your comment above: " on pages having nothing at all to do with the Thomas Legion." Your allegation is false, for each link added from that website, with its subdomain and/or respective page or link, had relevant, unique and rich content specific to each respective external link's section. Since when, or where, does Wikipedia policy state anything that you posted regarding domain names? I further instruct anyone reading this to do a search with my IP and see the links that were added to the external link section, click on them, see if the content was relevant to the respective page, then review them according to Wikipeida policy, and then ask yourself if BusterD is truthful? Where I am just shocked is that BusterD is in violation of Wiki policy by misrepresenting Wikipedia policy, and is merely making his own policy which is against Wiki policy, see also example below:

Numerous external links and websites listed on Wikipedia have various "domain names", from to; you very well know this, too, so why act contrary and make such an absurd statement that is contrary to Wikipedia's policies? Veracity is the best correction and instruction - not the contrary from you or anyone.

If I repeated myself, it was intentional, for I am revealing the person in question, who fabricates and makes his own policy, abuses power and literally speaks contrary to existing Wikipedia policy. BusterD, are you exempt from Wiki TOS, and your words supersede Wikis?

I challenge you, BusterD, to state Wiki's position supporting your domain name position.

Your words about giving me desert, laughable, but I am now off to my break. By I.P.

ANI Notice[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BusterD (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)