User talk:Theoldtimeman

Keep Calm and Carry On
I see you have tried to kill links to barter books two or three times. Indeed, it seems to be the only thing you do on wikipedia, which is very curious indeed. One might thing you had an ulterior motive. Before you seek to kill the links again, please have the courtesy to discuss the matter at talk:Keep Calm and Carry On. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel it is completely wrong to include links to a company such as Barter Books and any other for that matter that is profiteering from selling various forms of merchandise. Yes I am new to this; is this a problem? You suggest I have a ulterior motive, such as? One might ask the same as you wanting to keep these links in, are you affiliated with Barter Books by any-chance? Once again I feel it is wrong to include links to commercial companies making money through this page. talk:Keep Calm and Carry On. --Theoldtimeman (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We have thousands and thousands of articles dealing with companies and their products. The treatment for barter books in respect of the KC&CO poster is the same as for all others. We link to the barter books article, much as we link to Sony from the VAIO article, and to no less than 5 Sony sites in the external links of the VAIO article.
 * Your treatment of barter books stands out because that is the only thing you do: try to delink them. That's very odd behaviour for a newbie, very odd indeed. I revert vandals, and have done so thousands of times. So whereas your activity stands out & merits comment, mine does not. I advised you above to take your issue to the poster talk page. I'm sorry you've not done that. I suggest you do if you wish to pursue your quixotic quest. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Now we're getting into block territory. If you continue to vandalise the KC&CO article, you will be blocked from editing wikipedia. You have been advised multiple times that you need to discuss the issue on the relevant talk page - where you will find that the status quo is the consensus. If you delink the article aain without discussion, you will be blocked. I hope that is absolutely clear.
 * Further, I point out that this is not a battle that you can win. I and other will always revert your edits, whether today, this week, this month, this year or next. We're always here. If yo do not gain consensus for your change it will not stick, no matter how often you apply it. We'll merely go through a pantomime of reverts, notes like this, blocks, etc, which waste everyone's time. So please, wise up, admit to yourself that you have to make the case, and stop with the unilateral link deletions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Three-revert warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --McGeddon (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Keep Calm and Carry On#Link deletion / single purpose account
You may wish to argue your corner at Talk:Keep Calm and Carry On. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)