Jump to content

User talk:37.152.231.40: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Sorry: rv vandal
Line 12: Line 12:
::Again, if it does not bother you that most Wikipedia articles are flawed in the most appallingly basic way, I wonder why you are editing Wikipedia. Do you want it to get ''better'', or are you just content for there to be ever ''more'' of it? [[Special:Contributions/37.152.231.40|37.152.231.40]] ([[User talk:37.152.231.40#top|talk]]) 13:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
::Again, if it does not bother you that most Wikipedia articles are flawed in the most appallingly basic way, I wonder why you are editing Wikipedia. Do you want it to get ''better'', or are you just content for there to be ever ''more'' of it? [[Special:Contributions/37.152.231.40|37.152.231.40]] ([[User talk:37.152.231.40#top|talk]]) 13:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Needlessly insulting people doesn't make for a better encyclopaedia. And so long as the statement included is well sourced I don't care if the quality of the writing is particularly pristine. I and many other people ultimately treat Wikipedia as a directory of relevant sources on a subject. If an article says "{{tq|bridge was built over river in 18th century}}" then the only edit summary you need to leave upon changing it to "{{tq|the bridge was built over the river in the 18th century}}" is simply the word "copyedit". Again, this is something which is clearly making you very agitated in some way or another, and out of sincere concern I have to recommend that you try getting away from Wikipedia for a while. Watch a movie, play a video game, read a novel. [[User:HumanBodyPiloter5|HumanBodyPiloter5]] ([[User talk:HumanBodyPiloter5|talk]]) 14:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Needlessly insulting people doesn't make for a better encyclopaedia. And so long as the statement included is well sourced I don't care if the quality of the writing is particularly pristine. I and many other people ultimately treat Wikipedia as a directory of relevant sources on a subject. If an article says "{{tq|bridge was built over river in 18th century}}" then the only edit summary you need to leave upon changing it to "{{tq|the bridge was built over the river in the 18th century}}" is simply the word "copyedit". Again, this is something which is clearly making you very agitated in some way or another, and out of sincere concern I have to recommend that you try getting away from Wikipedia for a while. Watch a movie, play a video game, read a novel. [[User:HumanBodyPiloter5|HumanBodyPiloter5]] ([[User talk:HumanBodyPiloter5|talk]]) 14:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
::::"I don't care if the quality of the writing is particularly pristine" - truly astonishing. I do care, and if you don't, then why on ''earth'' are you editing Wikipedia? It's supposed to be a high-quality reference work, not a scrappily-written pseudo-directory. [[Special:Contributions/37.152.231.40|37.152.231.40]] ([[User talk:37.152.231.40#top|talk]]) 14:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:12, 19 January 2021

Hello, I see you have recently left a mesage on my talk page. To elaborate on the fact that this is a new account, I am the owner of "Peter Horid 1" which I no longer use. If you need me to confirm this, I can record a video of me logging into the account. As for the autoconfirmed userbox, I have now removed it as it has only been recently that I realized that you also need 4 days on wikipedia to be autoconfirmed and not just 10 edits. I take full responsibility in this mistake. Also, do you have a wikipedia account as we might get mixed up with IPs on further conversations. Lakwat (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Be less aggressive, please

After reading through your posts at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Editors_who_do_not_speak_English I gave a quick look at your contribution history. I think you mean well, but your posture is incredibly combative, and you should tone it down significantly. Stuff like this talk page post or that edit summary or that one are understandable if they are one-off occurences on a bad day, but those are representative of ~30% of your edit summaries. This personal attack, alone, would probably have been enough to earn you a one-day block (if it had been reported on the day you wrote it).

I would advise that you write your messages on the internet as if you were speaking them face to face to a man with big muscles, a low intellect and a short temper. This will greatly improve how friendly the messages back will be. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it is very easy to imagine on Wikipedia that I am communicating with someone with very low intellect. I'm not going to tiptoe around trying not to offend people; the quality of most articles on Wikipedia is absolutely shocking, and they are full of appallingly basic errors that many primary school children would be ashamed of. I believe that Wikipedia should aspire to way higher standards than this, and it's a disservice to the entire English-speaking world that it does not. If you are happy with the level of quality prevailing, and offended if someone says it's not good enough, then I would wonder why you are editing Wikipedia.
And what you described as a personal attack was not a personal attack at all. The recipient of that message may well have found it unpleasant to read. But if you think that we cannot tell people they are not competent in case they get offended by that, then you will end up with an encyclopaedia of extremely low quality. And that is what we currently have. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have to say that having seen a couple of this user's edit summaries I can immediately tell that they probably need to take some time away from Wikipedia. It seems that for whatever reason seeing minor errors in others' writing is deeply upsetting them and they're lashing out as a result. I don't think that they're coming from a place of bad faith or ill intention, but ultimately aggressive edit summaries calling other editors incompetent are not constructive. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if it does not bother you that most Wikipedia articles are flawed in the most appallingly basic way, I wonder why you are editing Wikipedia. Do you want it to get better, or are you just content for there to be ever more of it? 37.152.231.40 (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Needlessly insulting people doesn't make for a better encyclopaedia. And so long as the statement included is well sourced I don't care if the quality of the writing is particularly pristine. I and many other people ultimately treat Wikipedia as a directory of relevant sources on a subject. If an article says "bridge was built over river in 18th century" then the only edit summary you need to leave upon changing it to "the bridge was built over the river in the 18th century" is simply the word "copyedit". Again, this is something which is clearly making you very agitated in some way or another, and out of sincere concern I have to recommend that you try getting away from Wikipedia for a while. Watch a movie, play a video game, read a novel. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't care if the quality of the writing is particularly pristine" - truly astonishing. I do care, and if you don't, then why on earth are you editing Wikipedia? It's supposed to be a high-quality reference work, not a scrappily-written pseudo-directory. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]