User:DaniPine3/brogo
All the bad stuff Brogo has done
DISCLAIMER: Brogo13, if you're seeing this, I just want to tell you that this is not a personal attack, and I have nothing against you. I don't know who you are, so it'd be foolish of me to think bad of you when I've never met you in person. I'd just want you to learn what exactly is the problem with your edits. As a matter of fact, some of them aren't actually problematic at all (or just a bit problematic), and if you only did that kinda stuff, I doubt anyone here would have a grudge against you. But other stuff you do is like, way more problematic. And I'll be peeling it off, layer for layer, as an ogre onion.
Layer 1: Removing stuff
Brogo13 is a user whose most edits as labeled as "copy edits"; that is, he finds pleasure in correcting the grammar from articles. And there's nothing wrong with this. The problem is that, by trying to fix the grammar, sometimes he will make a joke's flow worse as compared to how it was usually written, or maybe even completely remove a joke. And, this being a funny wiki, humor is much more important than correcting small typos that most readers probably won't even notice.
Also, he likes to replace spaces with hard spaces using a template. I can't deny there's nothing that bad to this, but it makes the source code look weirder and it throws me off whenever I see these hard space templates.
Layer 2: Makes the article uglier and worse
However, removing stuff is just the first layer. Because, even if his edits are labeled as "copy edits" (or "ce"), these really aren't copy edits at all, as he often makes more noticable changes to an article than just fixing typos.
Images
A lot of times, he will remove the frame from framed images for no reason; and if framless images already look bad in articles that had them from the stuff, this is worse, because this often means removing the joke in the caption -and as I mentioned before, in a humor wiki, the last thing you want to do is remove a joke (unless it's a crappy one, which is often not the case). And even when the captions aren't jokes, it still looks bad.
Notes
A thing that Brogo has been doing a lot -and I'm pretty sure it still does from time to time- is that he will add an image of musical notes (
) to the "notes" section. This would be funny once, but he made this kind of thing in every article he edited for quite a while, making it appear in way more articles than it should (not to mention the joke was already made in visual puns, where the joke made sense). I was able to get rid of it in most of the articles he did this, though, so thankfully it won't appear in the future.
Also, he often adds little references that
Links
Another thing Brogo often does is adding links to specific sections within an article instead of just linking to the general page, which isn't that bad, but kinda unnecessary. The real problem is that he adds these links in places that don't belong; and sometimes they aren't
Also, a lot of times when there's a red link, instead of simply removing the red link by linking to its Wikipedia article instead, he leaves the red link and adds a lousy Wikipedia template. These are distracting and should only be put once to lead the reader to its Wikipedia article in case they aren't familiar with the subject -and thus, can't get the joke of the article. However he uses these templates as he pleases; he will lead the reader to topics that have nothing to do/are vaguely related with the article. Also another thing he does with these stuff is linking to the 'see also' section on the Wikipedia article (which I doubt the reader wants to read) and adds the words "...more", even though it really isn't "more" because what Uncyclopedia handles (humor) and what Wikipedia handles (serious stuff) are completely different (and this is also not how you use this template at all.)
Replacements
Also, remember how I said that Brogo removes jokes because of his copy edits? A lot of times I'm pretty sure this is intentional, as he not just removes the joke, but also replaces it with something completely different for no reason at all. For example, compare the version of the Facebook article before Brogo edited it, and the version after. Several things can be seen here:
- The joke now can't be understood, as it's way more vague and doesn't leave any clue what exactly is talking about.
- The quote now looks uglier: the censor looks like a stain of ink in an otherwise clean page, and now it's in the center for some reason. It's distracting, and for the wrong reasons.
- To top it off, there's now a reference in the quote which leads to an image of a can of worms. There's no explanation what this is supposed to mean, and it really doesn't seem to have anything to do with the original joke. Not to mention the image of the can of worms in the notes section -which most often is only used for text- makes the article looke even worse.
Layer 3: Hard to understand a communicate with
A peculiar thing of Brogo is the manner in which he speaks -or, rather, writes. He's probably the only user I've seen here that adds references to their own comments; which is kind of a bad idea to do regularly, because they will go at the bottom of the talkpage, where new comments should go. Also he often adds links to what he says, even if he isn't referencing any article or website in particular.
The problem with his manner of speaking is in how he writes, though, but rather what he doesn't write. For a person keen in copy editing, his comments aren't articulated with a proper grammatical prose and lengthful words. Rather, he writes short words like "dis sayin'", without any much to the sentence that exactly explains what he's talking about. This ofen makes the rest of users not understand what he's trying to say whenever they talk to him. The worst is that he has this kind of speech no matter the situation; as opposed to someone that has a quirky type of writing on the Internet but drops it when they're in a serious conversation. Although, if he did this, I doubt we'd see much of this kind of writing, considering he barely interacts with the other users aside from when the admins tell him he's done something wrong...
Also, he often adds this type of writing to the articles; and as I've mentinoned before, a lot of times he has replaced stuff with his own; which means that a lot of times he makes the articles harder to understand. Many jokes are lost with this kind of writing, and you won't get it unless you look at the revision history and read how it was before he edited it.
Layer 4: Vanity
Brogo swears that he's just here "lurking", and with this statement, one would expect that his edits don't go that far as removing a typo or two. But it's far beyond that, as one can clearly see from the stuff I've already listed, and it goes even beyonder (if that word exists). For a user who swears to simply be lurking, he sure likes to make everyone else on here notice that he exists. As a starter, all the stuff mentioned before could be seen as a way for him to make the articles look the way he wants them to look like; as every article he's edited -and are a lot, let me tell ya- have or have had these very same issues. This makes it look as if this is a common style on Wikipedia; when in reality, it's just a single user making sure this very artificial style is present in every single article, often to the detriment of the many edits of every other user to have edited on Uncyclopedia.
Layer 5: Stubborness
What Brogo's worst characteristic as an editor is probably his stubborness. Other users in his situation would probably have stopped doing these things after being told various times from various users -some of which are admins and others non-admins- why they are wrong. But Brogo won't listen. He still does this same stuff even after being repitiously told not to since he first logged in here in 2021. He even got put on Flammable's Office because of this, and the guy still did this, which prompted him to a ban.
Also, the guy won't even let you talking you in his talkpage, as he removes it the second after and doesn't even reply most of the time. And if trying to understand what he says is already a headache, this just makes trying to communicate with him even worse. And then he has the balls to imply we're the ones who are not listening to him...