Deananderson

March 2008

I have tried to work things out with Wrs1864, but he refuses to talk. See the history of the open relay talk page, where he added two paragraphs on why he refuses to talk, and then deleted the whole section.

I am not aware of any incorrect information, and none has been specifically identified. All or almost all of the information I have added cites sources, and is verifiable. If you can be more specific about what you think is incorrect, I will either provide a source or agree it should be removed.

 --Dean

Thanks for experimenting with the page Open mail relay on Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. richi (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Open mail relay. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. richi (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Open mail relay has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. richi (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

following wikipedia guidelines/policies

Please follow wikipedia guidelines and policies. In particular, on talk pages, please add new text at the end, as per Wikipedia:Talk#Layout. Do not modify or delete other people's writings, as per Wikipedia:Talk#Others.27_comments. Do not call something vandalism when it is not, as per WP:VAND#NOT. Do not post links to your website, as per WP:COI. Thank you. Wrs1864 (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wayne, removing adverse facts is not advancing NPOV. Removal of adverse facts is precisely what is necessary for a biased point of view. Mass removals of all contributions, as you did to the open relay page, is not about NPOV, but about vandalism; the complete destruction of all my contributions. You completely deleted my writings and my talk comments.

I do maintain the IADL site. It is not a revenue site, but an information site collecting email links. This site does not promote Dean Anderson, nor any business. There is no conflict of interest, as you assert.

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. richi (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Open Relay Page Dispute

I repeat: editors should not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing ... richi (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Open mail relay NPOV concernes

I am wondering what issues you have currently with the article, so I can work to make it more neutral and something we can all agree on. ffm 19:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I missed what you added to the talk. ffm