Contents

User talk:Bluegrasshockey

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. 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 rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three reverts ruleonfood heritage. Please do not construe this decision as taking sides; the other user engaged in the edit war has been blocked as well. When the block expires, please pursue discussion instead of reverting, rather than in addition to it. And remember: there are no emergencies on Wikipedia. Kafziel ^{Take a number} 05:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the oversight. However, I attempted to discuss via the other user's talk page to no avail. I warned him...still no turning the situation around. I even reported him here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Carl.bunderson_reported_by_User:Bluegrasshockey

However, in my haste, didn't add it to the bottom but rather the top. When I went to edit it and move it to the bottom, I found I was blocked from editing.

I have been unable to reason with Carl.bunderson. I would have preferred the rational method. However, in looking at the personal barbs in his posts, and the plethora of similar issues other users have had, it was apparent that the vandalism would continue even after Carl.bunderson's questions were answered. My link added was valid. I tried discussion first. What options do I have?

First, we need to get away from this "vandalism" stuff. Calling it vandalism implies that you are clearly right and he is clearly wrong, which is not the case. It's hard to have a productive conversation when you're both giving each other warnings.

Since this is not a case of vandalism, edit warring is never acceptable. If you're not able to settle the problem through discussion, you may need to look into dispute resolution. However, I should tell you that the links you're trying to add don't seem to fit our guidelines, and the fact that you've been inserting them into other articles for a while now indicates there may be a conflict of interest here. That doesn't mean he was right in removing them over and over, but it does mean that a community review will probably side with him. But you're certainly welcome to ask for another opinion after your block expires. Kafziel ^{Take a number} 06:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]