User talk:Newuser123

YOU LOT REMOPVECD EVERY SIONBGLE ONE OF M,Y LINKS WITH A SMU PETTY HILER NATURE AND THAT IS NOT BEING UNCIVIL YOU HAVE TRIED TO WRECK ME I CAN IMAGINE YOU WERE SITTING YEAHJH THIS IS GOING TO SHIOCH HIMW AND YOU LAUGHED SMUGLY AS YOU DID IT YOU ARE NIOT PAID TIO DO THIS YOU WRECKED MY WORJK ON YOUR OWN FREE TIME YOU ARE HORRIBLE TO ME AND IF YOU EXPECT ME TO BE POLITE TO YOU UTTERLY DERRANGED. WHAT DO YOU EXPECT ME TO FEEL TO SUCH SUCH SMUG PETTY HITLER TYPES I DI NOTHIBNG TO YOU AND THIS WAS VINDICTIVE. ASSUME GOOD FAITH MY **** YOU HAVE REMOVED EVERONE OF MY PAGES. WIHTOUT EVEN LOOKING AT THE CONTENT.

Hi there. You seem to be having some trouble with our linking policy. Do you need any help? &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 23:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You can reply here: I'm keeping an eye on this page.
 * From the comment you left on my Talk page I take it that you are a webmaster? I have to point out that we have a policy of prohibiting people from adding links to their own sites. (See External links, item 3.) The reason is that there is a conflict of interest involved that makes the link unable to qualify as a "reliable source" under our reliable sources policy. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 00:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

But that says normally not must be avoided. It is probably referring to controversial info or deeply scientific technical info. We are talking about web pages discussing birthplaces of British PMs, If you want to check my fauctal ccuracy compare my list to your own info. I am correct. Or my bio pages about acrtresses, where I have collated information. And can assure you the info is correct. The real cause of this is some bully took a random dislike to me and decided to remove all my pages and cam up with some spurious moral justification for it tell jhim to stop it to put all my pages back up. This is is bullying. You spam deleters are looking for stuff to do and are going for people who are not spam artists. I spend ate the very l;east an hour and often up to 2 days on my web pages and you have removed every single one of them that is not funny or clever or morally justifiable or standing up against spam that is picking on small web master and looking for nitpick rule and usibng the full force of it. It is like a police man following someone around and arresting every time they drop litter in their own car. You lot have gone over the top with your spam stuff. I have seen porn advertised on this website so i find it odd you delete my stuff which even when i do bio pages about page 3 models my pictures are non nude and clean. But you wont go for that will you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newuser123 (talk • contribs)
 * (psst! Newuser! please don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ )!) SB_Johnny  | talk 00:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's not referring to controversial or technical info. There is a conflict of interest: editors at Wikipedia are expected to be unbiased and objective in their editing, including in their assessments of the value of a link to an article. However, being the webmaster of the site, you cannot be objective or unbiased when evaluating links to your own site. Therefore, Wikipedia strongly discourages users from linking to their own sites. The only editors who can be objective and unbiased regarding links such as yours are editors who have no personal interest in the website. You must allow these other editor to make the decision to keep or remove the links.
 * Please reply in only one place, because otherwise it makes it very hard to hold a coherent conversation. FYI, I'm removing the additions you've made to my talk page. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 00:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"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. " It says noting about conflct of interest you are making up a rule you in the anti spam unit have made up your own rule and it is unworkable if people were only allowed to post another websites link therw would be no links. It is referring to neutrality as i said that means because you may be posting a controversial view not just posting facts that easily be verified, or pages. How can i ever expect anyone to posy one of my opages on wikepedia. That is not the real world. The only pages that would ever get done would be the BBC. As i said the rule is using term "normally". So why have you stamped down on me in such a big way with a max intepretation of the rule are you the bully who removed my stuff. This is every page removed i am not tlaking about one or two pages every page someone took against me big tiome and no one is explaing why you diecied to go to war with me why


 * Please stop double-posting or I will stop trying to help you. It is extremely annoying.
 * You're not being singled out. Hundreds of links of questionable value are added to Wikipedia every minute and they are routinely removed. Your links were removed very routinely because they are not terribly useful. Read the rest of External links Bollocks yopu are suggesing my page on borthplaces of UK PMS or birthplaces of singpaore OPMs is not useful you bullyiong idioy you removecd every page i ever did you bully.

and you'll see that we're not actually really interested in having links. Only the very best links ought to stay on an article, and only links that provide something that cannot be included in the article. You removed my postS out of vindictiveness you made me feel suicidal and then you continUe to spurn out abuse you are bully and thug.
 * Also note that "spam" at Wikipedia doesn't mean "Unsolicited Commercial Email", it means adding links either 1) to many pages at once, or 2) for commercial purposes. Now, links to your site have been added to such diverse pages at Jupiter and Kate Middleton, which certainly matches SO WHAT MY PAGES A USEFUL. MY SOLAR SYSTEM LINKS PAGE SHOWS THE HIGHEST MOUNTAINS IN THE UNVIESEVE HOW CAN YOU CALL THAT SPAM YOU VINDICTIVE BULLY (1). Also, your page contains ads, so you benefit from increased traffic. That qualifies your links for (2). Note that Wikipedia is not for advertising and abusing like this does not earn any sympathy. YOU ARE A SMUG BULLYING LITTLE HITLER. WHAY ANNOYS ME IS HOW MUCH PLEASURE YOU GET FROM DESTROYING MY WORK. I AM NOT A MILLIONAIRE, I DID USEFUL PAGES I ADDED USEFUL INFO AND YOU HAVE DESTROYED IT ALL I AM SURE YOU HAVE NOT SYMP;ATHY LITTLE HITLER PEOPLE DONT HAVE ANY SYMPATHYM, FOR ANYONE OTHER THAN YOUR PEDANTUIC CUTTING USE OF A RULE. YOPU DID NOT ASK ME WHAT PAGES WERE OK. YOU JUST DESTROYED ME. IF YOUI EVER GET INTO ANY TROUBLE I SHOPULD HAVE NO SYMPATHY FOR YOU,.
 * Finally, please stop assuming that we're evil and out to get you. At Wikipedia we have a rule: assume good faith. If you decide before listening that we're out to get you, then if we're actually not it will be impossible to convince you of this. If you assume we're bullying you, you'll never hear what we're saying about how Wikipedia works. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 00:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)RUBBISH YOU DELETED EVERY ONE OF MY PAGES WIHTOUT EVEN LOOKING AT THEM,


 * I see that you just added a link to Sophie Anderson. Please listen: this is not acceptable by Wikipedia policy. If you have no interest in improving the encyclopedia beyond linking to your own page, then it is straightforward to conclude that your only interest is in promoting your site. This won't be tolerated, and we "WE WHO IS WE IT IS YOU" ve an entire project devoted to thwarting such behaviour, as you've noticed. I've removed the link. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 00:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Well remove every IDMB page. I have improved the pages the people who had the initial choice over those pages accepted my links when they were intially made, they saw them as fan pages and fouind them informative, you removed my links out of a specfic vindictive desrire to remove my posts. You are a bully and you or /IF theere is someone else helping you in this made me feel suicidal. My pages were useful HOW CAN YOU SERIOUSLY SUGGEST MY BIRTHPLACES OF BRITISH PMS PAGE IS SPAM HOW HOW HOW?

I spent 3 days on the page. I will never make enough advertising money for that page. It doesn't even get many hits from wikipedia. I do not know if you are wealthy or a millionaire but so whay if my pages have an advert they are not spam, you are just a bully group of little hitler type people who want to go after specfic p[eople and have a smug smile on your face after you have destroyed them. I will not remember you on a postive light you have not HELPED me you tried to destroy me. There is not other expl;anation. You did not just remove my sophie anderton page which was useful you rem,oved pages such as birthplaces of British PMs that provide hugh ammounts of info that wikipedia do not have. And don't just tell me to add that info to wikiepedia i dont have 50,000 grand a year job. This was vindictie a specfic look at every page i did and a removal WITHOUT even looking at the content you did not even look at my content.

I have improved wikipedia, and noy just including links,. you lot have taken it upon yourself to be the judge of what spam is and you're worong and this was vinditice some bully spent hours of his free time taking off my pages. That is nor fair and it is specific. How can you suggest removing my highland clearances page or British PMs page is removing spam you are being vindictive. You are a bully and i felt suicidial after what you did but you don't czare cause you a little hitler who removes links under the spurious notion that your helping clena up wikipedioa. My links are not spam,. they add information. Often linking to a homepage. And why dont you admit who you are. I am certian it is you. Just admitt it. You can just about put forwatd an argument to remove my bio pages but don't tell me that my pages on birthplaces of spanish PMs or Birtish PMs or Irish PMS are spam you thug you are the spam merchant you are anoymous you are alittle hitler and this is your way of showing power and then you tell people off if they dissagree with your bullying policy. You make good people feel suidical you do not HELP them. You lot did not even warn me about what you were doing you did not even aks what pages were acceptable it was just bang destroy him then smile smuggly to yourself after wrecking someone.


 * Newuser123, you will get nowhere with this argument. You are now also in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. SB_Johnny  | talk 11:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh hear me go someone removes all my pages i get angry and put down even more for beuing upset Use your common sense you little hitler he rem,oved every one of my links and i am supposed to be kind to him why? What about his uuncivial nature. Why dio none of you have any understanding. He goes on my pages onsults my work, supports a deletetion of all my pages orbpablry did them, and i am supposed to be kind to him. I did not swear at him,. ai am argoibng back. You are not the police. I have right to be angry back. i have not sworn, alittle hitler is not a swear word it refers to petty law enforcers such as park attendetns or traffic wardens who go after people with a vindictive smugness with no sympathy

You have been blocked for 48 hours
For extreme personal attacks. Wikipedia is not the place for what you are doing. Calm down. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC) you sound an utterly nasty bully you are not a cat you are petty hitler as simple as that, you have banned from eding live in real world hopw is banning me going to make me calm down you little hitler bully, i will find out who you are and see if i can get you on any petty law infringements and then how you like the little hitler treatment. you bully. I did make any extrema atack you idiot little hitler is a refernxce to petty law enforcers like you who go after people with a vindictive smugness you are a little hitler there is not other term for you, that is not an extreme attack you should take that comment on baord change your horrible bullyingh behavuour Another little hitler who decides to ban me you are a disgrace. I diD nothing yo you and as usual the bullying thug decides to spring out of nowhere go after me who can you say this is no vinditice. As i have said lots of you moderators are just little hitlers who stand up for eachother but on else. You are a bully, and do not remove my reply. You are a bully as usaul another smug bully who get spleasyre trying to keep someone down. I am can imagine you are prbaly the worst of the lot a ottal nightmare. and dont tell me to be civil to someone who bbans me yiou bully you clam down this ps my user page you bullying thug. I bet you are troll.

LISTEN YOU LOT A RE BNUNJCH OF LITTEL HITLERS THERE IS NO OTHER TERM FOR YOU ASNWER ME THIS 1. Why di you expect me to be polie to someone who has removed every linmk id id 2) Why do you then expectme to be polite to a cat obsseded bored who bans me yopu are little hitlers as simple as that. I can be pretty certain i have found another double membserhsip. It is the old thing of little jhitlers standing uop for eachother you are not in right you bully me and expect me to grovel to your pathweic power. And dont ban me form replting on my own page. You are just makingme angrier. Why do you have no feelings for anyof you non littel hitlers.

This is what i mena SOME TOTAL BULLYING LITTLE HITLER CAM ON MY WEBSITE BANNED ME FOR 48 HOURS FROM EDING THEN REMOVES THE POST HE IS INDIVIATE OF LITTLE HITLER TYPES LITTLE HITLER = PETTY BULYINGF LAW ENFORCER THAT IS WHAT HE WAS.
 * I am going to unblock you indefinitely and then protect this page. We do not need attack pages thank you. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)