User talk:Brat32

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brat32 (talk | contribs) at 19:58, 31 July 2006 (→WD-40). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Your VandalProof Application

Dear Brat32,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact with the new 1.2 version release it has even more power. As such we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that that you don't have enough mainspace edits. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again in the not too distant future. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. —Xyrael / 17:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Obese people

There is a definition of obesity. You removed Jerrold Nadler from that list. Have you ever seen this guy other than that head-shot on his page? He's HUGE! He must be the heaviest guy in the Congress. Some examples: http://www.ou.org/events/5762/ots62/nadler.jpg / http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/02/04/images/jerroldNadler.jpg --Kalmia 06:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from anon IP address

I added many links to the Toronto wikipedia page, links that are tourism related, yet you only chose to delete a few, not all (even some which are more commercial than others). It is bias. You obviously have a preference or allegiance with some sites but not others. If you do so again without any legitimate reason, I will have Wikipedia remove you.

Toronto.com is the MOST commercial site out there, and yet you did not remove that. There are also other websites. Idiot.

(The above message is from User_talk:141.117.2.238) I would suggest if you want to get me removed the first thing is to get your own account. And please stop trailing around behind me removing my edits in various categories.

Michael Moore

I hope your comments on the Michael Moore talk pages weren't addressed to me. My response was a simple 'No' to his unsigned question, as I'd reverted his vandalism already a couple of times earlier on. rgds Khukri (talk . contribs) 22:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did realize that you made the fix of the vadalism, and then I thought you had posted in the talk page as a humorous response, and was replying in kind. I just looked at it and realized you had simply replied 'No' to the original poster. Sorry (I adjusted the reply slightly).

Open Directory Project

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Open Directory Project. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Brat32 14:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the talk page to the article. -- Zanimum 16:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

What is wrong with the Article Islamic Sheep? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheepman (talk • contribs)

How about the fact that it is ignorant hateful garbage of no encyclopaedic value whatsoever? There are plenty of sites on the internet that would welcome that sort of vulgar tripe, so please refrain from polluting Wikipedia with it. ---Charles 04:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheepman

Did you attempt to add a sockpuppet tag to the userpage for Sheepman? Well, something apparently went wrong, because it is nearly indecipherable, and does not form a recognizable textbox. Furthermore, there is text on the page that is only visible when one opens the edit page box. I do not know how to fix this, but it really should be repaired. Thanks. ---Charles 03:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's probably easiest if I just remove it, but I don't know the proper way. Do I just remove all the stuff I added to the Sockpuppet page and the user pages? Sheepman and Sheepman2 were posting the same stuff within a day of two, but the articles got deleted. --Brat32 03:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am really not the one to ask, sorry. I have never placed such a tag, and know next to nothing about them. Check with an administrator. Sorry. ---Charles 04:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam in Toronto

It is only spam when you GAIN PROFIT from advertising. I am a proud Torontonian, and as such, I take a special interest in promoting the city (through my website) to the world and potential visitors. I challenge you to find another site that features more useful information with less advertising than my site. I do not gain money from my site, despite a minor ad or two, which are much less intrusive than many other sites you have added yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.56.115.178 (talk • contribs)

No, it is not only spam when you advertise. It is spam when you keep adding your own site to numerous articles, it is very disruptive. Please read Wikipedia:Spam and especially Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided
3. A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.
And please explain what intrusive external links I added to Toronto sites--Brat32 00:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how is it intrusive? I mainly added links to more information I believe visitors would find useful. Okay, I may be promoting the city too much to not say the "negative" side of things in the city, but most of it, including the profiles and descriptions of attractions and what have you, are all neutral. I'm sorry, you didn't add links. What I meant was that many others have added far more commericial links (to Toronto and others) and you didn't delete them. *I* had to do that. Fodor's and Frommer's, while good sites, are aimed at increasing sales for their travel guides. TorontoInfoCenter.com is nothing but a list of spam. And yet you didn't do anything about those sites. You obviously have a bias about the city and quality information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.56.115.178 (talk • contribs)

(Please learn how to sign your posts so I don't have to sign them for you) My bias in your case, was that you spammed with multiple external links in multiple articles. As far as the other external links that I did not remove, I leave it to others with more experience to decide whether they should stay. --Brat32 00:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that I don't see you promoting the city, I see you promoting your site. What you have is not a hobby sites, but a full-fledged commercial site. You comment above It is only spam when you GAIN PROFIT from advertising. is somewhat disingenuous, you in fact run Adsense and banner ads on the site, from which you get revenues. --Brat32 01:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know how to add my signature. Anyway, you would be much more credible if your previous actions show it. Again, there were many links in Toronto which were much more commercial and you did nothing to them (see examples I mentioned). I never said there wasn't advertising on my site. However, ads on my links are very minimal if you compare it to most sites including Toronto travel sites. And besides, my site has a lot more information compared to many other travel sites, for Toronto or other cities. In fact, I was contacted by an official at TorontoTourism.com regarding further promotion of my site because of the value it contains. What you clearly have is a bias against my site. You say you have a bias against spam in general, but that is not the case. You probably have a bias against this city too. Where do you live? Probably elsewhere in Canada where people are so jealous of us. Anyway, I'm not even going to reply to any more of your comments, because it is just futile. Go edit other Wikipages if you feel the need. But don't harm a good page about Toronto, and the good links. I have done much to better the links section of Toronto. You've only served to destroy that.

Please stop accusing me of bias, it's nonsense. Go plead your case on the Toronto talk page - I've started a thread for you here Talk:Toronto#External_links_-_goodoldtoronto.com --Brat32 02:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WD-40

Have you tried using wd-40 to ease anal sex? Then don't do it, because it stings and I got a nasty infection. Please revert your revertion. 201.23.64.2 19:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please ensure to provide documented citations when you add information. Personal research is not considered a good source of information, see Wikipedia:No original research --Brat32 19:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brat32&oldid=66910919"