User talk:Billylenks
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Carl.bunderson (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well potentially being penalized by search engines. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
So let me get this straight you are saying if a site sells one thing it is spam per your own words. Then your I am wondering why you singled out one site for removal* A site related to survival and Survivalism
Sites in the References links that sell one of more items on the Survivalism Page.
4. http://www.aussurvivalist.com/ sells advertising on their site
6. http://www.biorationalinstitute.com/ sells advertising on their site
7. http://www.survivalblog.com sells items
8. http://www.survivalblog.com sells items
9. http://www.survivalbill.ca sell advertising
11. http://groups.yahoo.com/search?query=survivalist&submit=Search sell advertising and no real reason way Ref should list search of yahoo groups for a keyword
19. http://www.equipped.org/ sells tons and tons of stuff would be the bigest spam on the page (LITTLED WITH PRODUCTS FOR SALE EVERY WHERE). WOULD ALSO LEAD TO NPOV ISSUES WITH YOUR EDITS SINCE YOU DID NOT REMOVE THIS REF LINK.
22. http://www.survivalbill.ca/ has the same ref and link as 9. which what you are citing http://www.survivalblog.com that it should not have a link extrenal links since it has a ref already. Why would you say this about the link I added and remove my edits when there are the same problems on ref section that you choose to plainly do nothin about when they are in plain sight for everyone to see. """"YOU Do UNDERSTAND THAT THIS HAS MASSIVE NPOV ISSUES WRITTEN ALL OVER IT FOR YOU AND ANY ONE THAT HAS EDIT MY EXTRANAL LINKS AND NOT OVER CHOOSING TO FIX THESE ISSUS"
25. http://hislink2.proboards53.com/index.cgi sell advertising through google adsense
29. http://technohippie.com/archives/beasurvivor.html sell advertising through google adsense
31. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056331/ despite the site having a review of the movie it is spam because it sells way too many items. per your own words one is too many.
32. http://www.badmovieplanet.com/unknownmovies/reviews/rev268.html sell advertising through banner for movies
34. http://www.oism.org/nwss/index.htm Sells books
36. http://www.biorationalinstitute.com/zcontent/alpha_strategy.pdf THIS LINK IS DEAD AND DOES NOT WORK AND WILL FREEZE YOUR COMPUTER MESSAGE THAT COMES UP "THIS FILE IS DAMAGED AND COULD NOT BE REPAIRED" WOULD ALSO LEAD TO NPOV ISSUES WITH YOUR EDITS SINCE YOU DID NOT REMOVE THIS REF LINK that is harmful to WP users over links that work!!!!!
I am very well aware what can and can't be added and I will make that very clear for the other users who read this. Despite some of these sites selling products or advertising in some form or another they belong on the page because they offer info that makes this page worth reading and provides Ref to the items placed here. This is just to make a point to Carl.bunderson (talk) and that he gets the point that removing my two edits is not very NPOV from what he is saying about my edits or what this user is doing to remove my edits. The real issues with this page have been overlooked going after personal issues that are not NPOV and it does not take much to look over the issues I presented and see that.
Carl you did open this door and and removing my edits further over and over without correcting the same issues with the rest of the Survivalism page will raise some major NPOV issuse. billylenks (talk) 6:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Introduction to and warning regarding the Three revert rule
Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 3RR. Thank you. El_C 07:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
June 2008
