"If you're a registered user, I'll respond where the conversation started; if you're an anonymous user, I'll only respond on this page"

From User:AuburnPilot talk page.

Well, aren't you special? Since you started this little "conversation" by vandalizing some literature I added, and could not be bothered to tell me where you had vandalized it, thus forcing me to hunt down your offense, I don't think I'll be following your orders, oh Great and Wonderful Oz. By the by, I see that you first vandalized my link, then suggested it was "spam," and then suggested further that I "explain [my] rationale" for adding the link.

You claim to put a lot of stock in what you call "civility," so I've got some news for you. Walking up to a stranger, stomping on his foot, and then suggesting he not walk so closely is not civil. Same difference with what you did, Buster. The phony sweet tone is an insult to real manners, just as counterfeit money is a crime against the real thing.

Let's try a thought experiment from a parallel universe. User "AuburnPilot2," for some inexplicable reason, is less than fond of a link an editor inserted. And so, rather than vandalizing the link, he "use[s] the article's talk page to explain [his] rationale" for disliking it.

Since the article in question, on Racial Profiling, is one dominated by links promoting the racial profiling hoax, there is nothing spammish about the link I inserted to a classic article on the subject, and one of the many wikisophistry strategems employed here is for someone who abhors the facts contained in a linked article to denounce it as "spam," I am going to conclude that you used the charge of "spam" as cover for political censorship. But feel free to try and mount a defense; perhaps you can come up with a new wikisophistry strategem to cover for your previous one. Thanks!