[1][2][3]Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. You are, however, encouraged to add appropriate content to the encyclopedia. If you feel the material in question should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Hu1200:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.--Hu1200:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you to say this is a promotional message? It is just a paragraph to explain the interest thingy. How funny you are! Did you discuss it in the discussion page? You are violating the rules too. Is there any rule which says one can delete a whole paragraph without discussion? # Happyzone— Happyzone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hu12 says we should discuss before editing the page. But he didn't discuss when he removes a large sum of contents. How funny he is! He uses his own power so he can control the page at his own will. There is a rule which says you should explain before you revert. Improve it not just revert. Did he follow THE RULES? No. The only thing he contributed is to destroy, so I think he should be banned too in this case. I know I am going to be banned too since I have pointed out his evildoing. Ha... ha... # Happyzone— Happyzone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
May want to first read WP:CIV. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:
Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Statememnts such as Interactive Brokers offers most attractive interest rates in the industry and the sections that were removed did no attempt to report objectively with a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you wish to advertise or solicit the merits of your favorite views.
Advertising. Sections added to Interactive Brokers promoting commission rates, trading discounts, attractive interest rates or account minimums are inpropriate for inclusion and unencyclopedic. This has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not Allow advertising.
Please refrain from repeatedly adding promotional material to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. --Hu1214:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hu12 added back the ad and then frame me up *with proofs*
I'm going to ban soon since I'm pointing out his evildoing. You added the ad yourself and you are going to tell me it we me who added the ad. You are so funny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interactive_Brokers&oldid=111787321#Interest_rates
LOOK CAREFULLY!! It was your edit!!
You insist in restoring the "Interactive Brokers offers one of the most attractive interest rates in the industry." (highlight it with a grey box) which I removed until I pointed out your evildoing. You are now accussing me of adding this. You are such a non-sense.
Another funny part is you would view the whole section as an ad. I don't think anyone except you will think that section is a promotional material. That section is clearly not promoting the company.
The paragraph is already there. You didn't discuss it before removal. You broke rules yourself too. Discuss before revert is standard. Did you do it? No.
Someone who would frame another one up is not worth discussing with. Since you are so irrational, I don't think I need to discuss with an uncivil person like you anymore. As I said, it is just your opinion. Your edit is barbarian. You are rude and impolite. You removed the whole section in the name of ad which is not whatsoever. You try to threaten someone who would like to contribute. I think it is you who need to re-read the 5 pillars. I hope I can complain you and let an admin ban you for your barbarian acts. If you see a particular statement which is an ad, point it out and remove that bit but not the whole section. You still don't understand if you see the problem, you should fix it. Removing the whole section because there are a few statements which may be ads are just your excuses.
PS: It is very irritating that there is a seriously biased admin like you. I have read quite a few pages about companies and products. I see they will also try to describe the company's products, their history, commentaries and criticisms and so on. I can see some statements which are clearly promoting the company or the product. However Hu12 didn't remove the whole section but chose to turn a blind eye on them. Hu12 is being double standards. You guess why?— Happyzone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
