User talk:Bruno23

3) You cannot demand that other editors wait for you to finish your edits and chastise or revert anything that is not your own. You do not own the article. Bruno23 19:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC) [edit] =I DEMAND EXCELLENCE AND ACCURACY IN REPORTING AND WRITING===ANYTHING ELSE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE--Sagbliss 04:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Now this has to be one of the most ironic statements I've ever read.  Sagbliss' writing is anything but excellent and accurate.  Half the time I don't know what the hell she is talking about. Get thee to a writing course (and a psychiatrist)! Bruno23 14:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11109
I have no problem with anyone editing the technical part of what I write. What I am putting on here is substantive legal issues with good legal cites. I don't know if you are an attorney or have any legal background but I note that you have removed references to Section 21.1 of the DIvorce Act of Canada. Further, when writing about an article such as this which relates to Civil Law, Judaic Law is totally irrelevant.

The legal cites for the benefit of the reader should be left. Also initially, the article substantively was incorrect. Once I have finished in the next few days, if my technical insertions are incorrect, these should be edited but unless someone else here is an attorney, please leave the chronological order of dates alone because it affects the law. And I work with people all the time. When I write,I leave out salacious material which has absolutely no relevance to the legal issues at hand. Once the Supreme Court of Canada rules if the Court rules for Bruker, the Court of Appeals case will be totally moot. The attorneys for the case will probably weigh into the article as well.

I am not a person who has time to sit at the computer all the time and write an article. I am busy. It takes time to write and edit an article. The Australian section is also incorrect and will be changed to reflect the issue of the courts ordering specific performance for a religious issue. Further, once the Supreme Court of Canada rules on Bruker v Marcovitz, the Court of Appeals statements will most probably be moot. Many of the Canadian attorneys in Canada disagree with the Court of Appeals decision which is why the Supreme court is hearing the case.

And wikimedia editors are very aware that I am writing this article and if you continue to vandalize this work, your name will be noted as disturbing what can be an excellent factually correct article.

So wait a week until this portion of the article is finished.
 * Wow.... this person is a nut. Bruno23 15:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Greetings from Asbury Park   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.136.114 (talk) 05:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup templates
Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup"etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards,

Totally
Right now, we have to treat this as if he just doesn't understand (which we can't block him for). But yeah, this situation is a big legal threat waiting to happen. Wait it out, if it gets worse, he could be blocked for disruption. J- ſtan TalkContribs 17:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

McIntosh Labs
Hi, are you sure your approach to the image sizing leads to a better result? I did the static sizing so the image lines up better with the infobox above (which is static). I don't really care if you want to leave it as is, but from a layout perspective, a single width for that column of images and info box looks better to my eye. Bruno23 19:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The infobox is not staticly sized. It varies depending on the size of the font being used.  I guess whether the image size is better or worse depends on your preference, but thats what the user settings are for.  See Help:Preferences, where it says the following.  Cheers.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * the default thumbnail width can be set in the preferences; this can be overridden by an image width specified in the image tag; the latter is typically not advisable, in order to respect the users' preferences.

? RETARDS?
problems related to foreskin? what are you a retard? Everyone has foreskin, men, women, animals. You must be a retard. Without your foreskin, your girlfriend ain't ever gunna orgasm when you two do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.38.167 (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Would have liked this to be funny. If someone's going to attack, wish they had wit. Oh well. Bruno23 (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Emile
It's irrelevant whether you dream of having a wiki article or not. It's also irrelevant whether the voters are new users. Wikipedia is not a beuarocracatic hierarchy, its a factual database & encyclopedia. It belongs the world, it is current and it is free. Rhetoric and slander are really not appreciated. Neutrality is much appreciated. If you feel this person does not meet WP:BIO or has no verifiable sources, please offer and a well structure and intelligent argument based upon the rules of Wikipedia. If you have notable sources and are a notable individual, please create a page. The same logic applies for you: read WP:WAX. Thank You--Whordwind (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Now who's acting like they have personal skin in the game. For starters, there was no slander (or Libel which is when you write something).  And I can be a rhetorical as I like.  For someone who's in favor of an article about a "rap poet", you should looove rhetoric and the art of words.  Bruno23 (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * hey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.234.122 (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber & Collect
Yeah, Collect uses a lot of Ad Hominem attacks. Be careful not to get drawn into his approach. He just keeps at it till you go nuts. Mattnad (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He was pretty rude and sidesteps straightforward questions about the topic. This guy could have been a politician if he weren't so unpleasant.  I've said my piece.  Bruno23 (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Mind taking a look at the article when have a chance?Mattnad (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When I can. Thx. Bruno23 (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD
Please see: Articles for deletion/Helen Jones-Kelley. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC
See this Mattnad (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

B&O
Thanks. I could face another POV removal session on an article. I've removed the advert tags etc, but put in a "cleanup" tag - as it's still a bit messy. I'll try to finish the cleanup myself.FengRail (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Collect
Please see my comments at Requests for comment/Collect. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of High-end audio cables
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is High-end audio cables. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/High-end audio cables. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)