User talk:Barland

Sorry Barland but that is a blog, not just "superficially a blog" as you put it. It contains original research, blatant point of view essays and copyright violations. There is hardly a criterion of our external links normally to be avoided that it doesn't break. This simply isn't an appropriate external link for Wikipedia. Please do not add it back to the article. Sorry, Gwernol 17:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please make sense Gwernol. Newspaper articles are considered valid links. Newspapers contain original research, blatant editorials and funny cartoons for you to read. And there are no copyright violations. Thus your argument is silly. It is very appropriate indeed. LordJimmy165.228.131.12 17:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "LordJimmy" please read our guidelines on what a reliable source is and our guidelines on external links. It is very clear that this link does not meet our standards for an appropriate external link. Attempts to "force" this link into the article will result in blocking of disruptive users. Gwernol 17:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Three revert rule warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Gwernol 17:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Final spam warning
This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link,  you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. Gwernol 17:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)