User talk:Doxmyth

Try this rule

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files

Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. All content added to Wikipedia may have to be edited mercilessly to be included in the encyclopedia."

So stop adding a link to your site which DOES NOT contain one scintilla of information about Tom Swift! MookiesDad 22:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also visit this Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

What should be linked to

Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked to in a references section, not in external links. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Sources available in both web and print editions should have a citation for the print edition as well as a link.

Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if there is one. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.

On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.)

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.

Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as professional athlete statistics, screen credits, interviews, or online textbooks

--

Since you like to quote WIki rules so much, try this on for size: The Three-revert rule (or 3RR) is an official policy which applies to all Wikipedians. The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period. This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day. MookiesDad 02:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey genius - why don't you be more careful when you "edit" (read vandalize)? You deleted the 1st TS Sr. title. You think all I have to do is run around cleaning up your messes? MookiesDad 02:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"MookiesDad, here is a quote from vandalism: "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as vandalism, then he or she is actually damaging the encyclopedia by driving away potential editors." -Scott Dickerson Doxmyth 18:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)"

That presupposes you have an actual contribution to make, which you don't seem to have (if you do, you haven't exhibited it yet). As far as I can see, you've vandalized the list of TS Sr. titles, presented uncited speculation as fact and promoted your own off-topic web site. Why do I consider your "site" off-topic - because it doesn't supply any information on any of the various series, it's just your monumental ego trip. Every reviewer of your "fiction" has declared it poor and juvenile. Get it? NOBODY LIKES IT! It's not relevant to the Tom Swift page of Wiki. I will remove your link and "Predecessors" paragraph any time you post it. I'm retired and have nothing but time on my hands and I dislike whining crybabies. MookiesDad 19:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming My Talk Page

You wrote: "I'm all for freedom of speech, and "Death to all vandals!" may well reflect your opinion. But as you repeatedly call me a vandal, I find it entirely inappropriate, offensive, and very likely a violation of Wiki policies and guidelines. It also reflects very badly on you, both as person and as Wiki participant. Please Stay Thy Vengeful Hand and tone down the rage. -Scott Dickerson Doxmyth 16:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)"

So you believe in free speech just as long as you happen to agree with the speech in question? Odd, very odd! You go on and on about Wiki policy, a subject about which you demonstrate little, if any, knowledge. It's no small wonder that you are a pariah in the Tom Swift community. Please stop spamming my talk page with your whining and illogic. MookiesDad 19:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cease and desist from posting your bizarre interpretation of Wiki guidelines on my Talk page. If anyone should take the time to read the guidelines, it is you. You repeatedly link spam the Tom Swift pages with off-topic links to your fan fiction site. MookiesDad 12:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notification to editor MookiesDad

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

(above statement provided as required) Doxmyth 18:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are a link spammer. That is not an attack but a pure statement of fact. You repeatedly try to promote your site, despite the fact that it contains absolutely NO information about Tom Swift. Furthermore, please cease and desist from posting to my user talk page. It is nothing but pure harrassment and has been reported as such to Wiki. MookiesDad 22:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links

There's a few things at issue here. First off, yes, the links on fan fiction were most definately removed because they were too specific to the topic where links to examples of fan fictions already exist ("too many links"). You and MookiesDad are getting too heated with reguard to links. However, you should add links to your website to anything, as that would be against one of wikipedia's five pillars of holding a neutral point of view. You can never hold a neutral point of view in your own website's need to be linked from an article. BUT! That doesn't mean the link itself is entirely a bad idea, in fact, its often very common for 1 or so fan sites to be included in an article. MookiesDad, for example, needs to hold to assuming good faith, the recognition that everyone can edit, and noone 'owns' articles, and the fact that nothing is firm, not even the rules. You and him argueing about the rules is something we've come to call wikilaywering. (You can't laywer the rules on wikipedia!) Hope this helps you editing. Just relax and help us expand this encyclopedia. Ask me any questions you have. Read that five pillars link too, everything stems from there. Kevin_b_er 02:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scodiar

Aren't you the same guy who sometimes goes under the id Scodiar and posted the review of a gay drama that you watched three times called Eban and Charley at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253063/usercomments?start=10 Noumenes 00:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noumenes 00:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]