User talk:24.205.146.121

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is spam. Stop adding that link Compwhiz II 21:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please explain to me how this is spam? It is Mitch Cullin's official blog and web page on Redroom.com? Perhaps you should do your homework before automatically deleting something as spam. But, please, explain to me how a web page that pertains to the subject at hand, i.e. Mitch Cullin, is spam?

[edit] January 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Mitch Cullin, you will be blocked from editing. Compwhiz II 22:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.


Wikipedia isn't a collection of links. Good day sir! Compwhiz II 22:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely the most absurd thing I've encountered on Wikipedia. A user tries to add legitimate information to an article and is hounded for no logical reason whatsoever. As I've stated again and again, I wasn't vandalizing the page, nor was I adding spam. The article is about the author Mitch Cullin. The external link I was providing was Mitch Cullin's web site and personal page on Red Room. It added insight to the subject, and was not out of line with what the article was about. At every turn I've encountered a kind of zealous need to delete this link and information that simply mystifies me. Is this sort of behavior in keeping with the spirit of what Wikipedia is about? User:24.205.146.121 22:43, 6 January 2008

[edit] Mitch Cullin

The question you have to ask yourself is, does this link improve the article and does it add further understanding abotu the subject. The answer in this case is no. It has been reverted again because of this. If you re-add the link, you will be violating the WP:3RR rule and as such, you are liable to be blocked. DISCUSS it on the talk page before reverting. Build a consensus on the issue. Woody (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Woody Compwhiz II 22:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No offense, Woody, but clearly you haven't asked yourself the very same question you've asked me. So let me answer in kind. Obviously if the entry is about the author Mitch Cullin and the link is his own personal blog and web site, then of course it improves the article and adds further understanding to the subject. How could it not, especially when it offers insight into what the subject is thinking and doing? This isn't spam on my part, nor is it vandalism. It is, in fact, an honest effort to improve the article and offer a logical external link that clearly pertains to the subject. It should be there. User:24.205.146.121 22:35, 6 January 2008

It doesn't look like spam to me. On the other hand there's plenty of other junk that shouldn't be there in that article's External links. • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 22:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)



You continue to add this link even after an admin has intervened. you have been report and are now subject to ban. Good Day Sir! Compwhiz II 22:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are you reporting him, that link isn't spam; it appears to be Mitch Cullin's official site/page/thing. ??? • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 22:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Anakin. I'm really confused by this situation. User:24.205.146.121 22:44, 6 January 2008

The request has been denied, it wasn't spam and I have told him that. Compwhizii has also stated that he will step away from the situation. I have formatted and cleaned up the article, adding in reference formats where appropriate. Please try and avoid all this hassle in the future by discussing instead of reverting. Thanks. Woody (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Woody. Your cool-headed intervention is much appreciated. Is it now safe for me to add Cullin's blog to the External links? User:24.205.146.121 22:55, 6 January 2008

I should have checked back here as well, arguing already seems to have been resolved peacefully. I added a thing on the article talk page though anyway. • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 23:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)