User talk:SHFW70: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:05, 17 November 2013

I don't care what is posted here, it will be immediately deleted.

Play nice

Consider this a fair warning from a neutral editor who just happened across one of your edit summaries, if you're not going to play nice, don't play at all. If you're not able or willing to contribute in a respectful way, this being a collaborative project after all, then expert or not I'll just block you and be done with it--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll play nice when people who don't know what they're talking about stop running their mouths and stop reverting my edits. We're talking about removing a single unnecessary word. That's it. You people are ridiculous. SHFW70 (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is a self-proclaimed "expert" only. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Look at my edit history, bitch. I've added more to rorqual articles than any other prick on here. Piss off. SHFW70 (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've looked at your edit history as you suggest, and find, to my surprise, that you have you have indeed added some useful stuff to a few rorqual articles. However, you don't appear to be the main editor on rorquals. Still, what you have done is a bit surprising, as your behaviour does not suggest you have a professional or collaborative background. Merely adding a bit to a few articles does not make you the "expert" you claim to be. If you want to claim that on Wikipedia, you need to disclose your academic qualifications and the positions you have held, and perhaps your academic publications. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you shouldn't have arbitrarily reverted what I thought were minor edits to perpetuate ignorance. Assclown. SHFW70 (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have no sense of the audience you are writing for. Most people don't know that rorqual's are whales, and it is rude to leave them in ignorance, or leave them wondering, or unnecessarily forcing them to investigate the matter. But rudeness seems to be your strong point. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I didn't know how difficult it was for incredibly lazy people to click a link once, or dare say, bother read other words on the page they're reading to realize that a rorqual is a whale. What will this generation do now? I'm saddened that no child will ever know what a rorqual is. Perhaps we could create a page, here on wikipedia, about them? What say you? Can this be done to save humanity? I have hope. SHFW70 (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 :Perhaps you shouldn't have arbitrarily reverted what I thought were minor edits to perpetuate ignorance. Assclown. [[User:SHFW70|SHFW70]] ([[User talk:SHFW70#top|talk]]) 01:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 :: You have no sense of the audience you are writing for. Most people don't know that rorqual's are whales, and it is rude to leave them in ignorance, or leave them wondering, or unnecessarily forcing them to investigate the matter. But rudeness seems to be your strong point. --[[User:Epipelagic|Epipelagic]] ([[User talk:Epipelagic|talk]]) 01:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
+:::You're right. I didn't know how difficult it was for incredibly lazy people to click a link once, or dare say, bother read other words on the page they're reading to realize that a rorqual is a whale. What will this generation do now? I'm saddened that no child will ever know what a rorqual is. Perhaps we could create a page, here on wikipedia, about them? What say you? Can this be done to save humanity? I have hope. [[User:SHFW70|SHFW70]] ([[User talk:SHFW70#top|talk]]) 02:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)