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