Juice Plus I understand your frustration with the articles problems but please do not call the insertion of links vandalism This could be construed as a personal attack and will likely escalate the hostility I ve tried to explain to the editor why they do not need multiple links to the same site and warned them that they are in danger of violating the three revert rule please note that you re close to violating it yourself If discussions with this editor haven t been working please try using other forms of dispute resolution Shell babelfish The first warning that was given in regard to vandalism involved the editor s removal of a link As near as I can tell the unwarranted removal of content links qualifies as vandalism Is that interpretation incorrect The contributor replaced the http address for a link with a commercial spam link on October 7 and again on October 8 According to Wikipedia guidlelines this does qualify as vandalism and the editor was given the appropriate vandalism warning The next warning that was given was for the insertion of spam commerical links that were already listed on the page i e Juice Plus coporate page which seems appropriate to Wikipedia policy In addition since this contributor sells the product in question their repeated vandalism and insertion of spam links should be closely scrutinized This is also not the first time that this editor has been warned for wanton spamming and vandalism so it can not be argued that they are unaware of Wikipedia s policies Lastly as I understand it the 3R rule does not apply to reverts of vandalism or spamming I look forward to your opinions and clarification on this matter