User talk:Annonpuro

Proposed deletion of Competifriends
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Competifriends, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * neologism

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Nuttah (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

pure-o thing
Hello Annonpuro, I am sorry if you feel wronged. If you don't understand Wikipedia's policies regarding linkspam, self-interest, and non-notability, please read the guidelines. All three of these things are, individually, either discouraged or disallowed; your proposed link can be described as all three. Thank you. aruffo (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I repeat: if, as you say, you do not understand Wikipedia policies, please acquaint yourself with these pages. Until you understand how Wikipedia works, you will continue to be baffled about why your edits are continually reverted. There is in fact a bot which does nothing but scour articles to find and remove links just like yours. Please read Wikipedia policies on linkspam, self-promotion, and notability before complaining further. Thank you. aruffo (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I am well acquainted and did respond after thoroughly researching your point. . The ONLY possible violated policy would be the fact that I created the link, however, this link is a resource site, not a self-promotion site, and the research I have done on Pure-O and the authoring of this Wikipedia entry I think should give enough credibility to the appropriateness of placing the link. There is no other site referencing the disorder in so much detail. Would you prefer that someone else put the link there? What is the difference? However, my passion is not about the argument about whether it belongs, but that before it was removed, it should have been better discussed and addressed. Not trying to pick a fight, just not understanding why it was so important that you take it down so many times when it is the ONLY site that is dedicated to the disorder.Annonpuro (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Aside from the fact that your website crashed my browser every time I attempted to visit it, there is no independent, widely disseminated, or peer-reviewed evidence which verifies that your "resource site" is a legitimate source of unbiased, scientifically validated information. You must understand:  without meeting such criteria, your site and your actions are no different-- and equally as well-intentioned-- as the person who builds a website chock-full of their own "helpful information" about the moon landing being a hoax and then tries to add a Wikipedia "external link" to their own site from that article.  If you fail to see that your attempts to promote your own site are identical to this hypothetical user-- or persist in claiming that attempting to direct traffic to a site you maintain is not "promotion"-- then you must stop talking to me and start asking Wikipedia administrators for clarification of the rules you are misinterpreting.


 * If you genuinely care about the "pure-o" article then I would suggest that your efforts would be best directed toward rewriting the pure-o Wikipedia article so that it is a coherent, well-referenced and sourced, thoroughly exhaustive description of the malady... which, right now, it most certainly is not. aruffo (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh.. and by the way.. I don't really care about the pure-o article, and if you re-add your link to that article I won't bother you again about it. But if someone ELSE (or the bot) removes it you'll know why.  So best of luck and all that.  I'm sorry if you've felt frustrated.  aruffo (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)