UKAmerican, you are invited to the Teahouse
Dispute in Comodo Internet Security
With regards to the last change in Comodo Internet Security article, we are quickly approaching the borders of edit warring. I thought that simply by dropping my stance, the problem would go away but apparently, it didn't. If either of us make one more revert (even a pseudo-revert or partial revert) there is a mounting risk of admin intervention which could end up in all of us being blocked and the article locked.
I suggest we take the issue to talk page immediately and cease editing the disputed area. I've already contacted other involved editors.
- I see that you have remove software reviews from independent editors from the article, calling them "self-serving" and "advertisement". I don't know what you were thinking but Wikipedia demands independent coverage from reliable secondary sources like those that you removed. As long as they are reported impartially without bias and without censorship of unpleasant parts, that's exactly what we want.
- I don't really know what to make of your edits but the become more and more aberrant every time. You should seriously consider studying Wikipedia core policies.
Hello, I'm Deb. 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.
Please note that all ad networks mentioned on List of advertising networks need to have an existing Wikipedia article, per the note that shows up at the top of the page when you edit it. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 15:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)