User talk:Adamos68

The link you are posting again and again is pointing to a website that has a lot of advertising and should not be here. I have read that page and it has no useful information. It looks you are posting your links for advertising revenue. If you post the link again I will report you. If you are really interested to help and improve this post then you are always welcome to edit the side effects section. Please do not post your advertising link again otherwise I will have to report you.


 * You have to take these kind of edit wars to the discussion page instead of continuously undoing changes. Please discuss first and then modify article. As the link was part of the article for long enough time it should stay until other editors submit their pov and agree / disagree. Craynesworld (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Spam or not spam...
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may place unblock on your user talk page to have the block reviewed. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia.

--Dirk Beetstra T C 13:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)



This link was first placed over and over in the external links section, then it was used as a reference. You only purpose here is to include that link, while others keep disagreeing. Note that Anaxial does refer to WP:CITESPAM. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We both know that this is not true, but if this is how you think Wikipedia should work, so be it... Simply look at the others who were disagreeing: only user Kintetsubuffalo is an actual editor, all other disagreeing users (3 users) were link spammers; all they did is changed this link to another site's link. Even Third Opinion was asked, and site was found not to be spam. Now you decide as the consensus that it will be considered as spam. I find this to be pretty shocking... I devoted time and energy to create the Side Effects and Risks section, and as I mentioned above, I used the page in question as a resource. If you call that site spammy, why don't you remove the Risks and Side Effects section as well? If the resource is spammy, so should the content be, no? Adamos68 (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)