User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

For what it's worth, linguists do say "long-distance assimilation": e.g. Google yields [1]; [2]; generalisation A, page 6 of [3]; on page 57 of [4]. 4pq1injbok (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

So what? It's unclear to a typical reader. Why hinder people with vague wording? It's a fact that such assimilation is "non-adjacent" whereas to call it "long-distance" is ultimately meaningless. Long distance in relation to what? Nothing. Be gone.

So nothing. I don't in fact care whether the wording is "long-distance" or "non-adjacent". But responding straight off with this sort of stuff
Please take your autism elsewhere, nerd. LOL!!
does make me lose any sympathy for your positions I might otherwise have had. 4pq1injbok (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, cuz knowledge is all about the sympathy and politics... yeah, right. fail. (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Proto-Semitic language[edit]

Please add new comments to the bottom of the page, in accordance with standard Wikipedia conventions. AnonMoos (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

and who can tell what the conventions are except anal geeks? yeah, WP sucks. LOL! this geeky "policies crap" is funny.
Dude, it makes things easier for everybody if you follow certain established forms (whether they're good or bad, they're how many people expect things to be done). In fact, comments added to the top of a talk page can be overlooked, because people automatically scan to the bottom of a page looking for new comments... AnonMoos (talk) 09:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
good... bad... nonsensical. call it what you want, wacko. when something is poorly explained to visitors, expect confusion. fact: not everyone scans to the bottom and none of the topics are clearly dated. so it just comes across as random anyway. you live in your own bubble. typical WPian. (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

look, I endorse WP:SPADE. Come to my talkpage and call me names, I won't mind. But what you call "ridicule" isn't "constructive". Instead of "cite your sources, assholes" just say "cite your sources". You are making the same point, and you don't sound like a moron frothing at the mouth. Alright? I might add that if you insist on going on about how much Wikipedia sucks instead of sticking to the point, I can just click a button to block you from editing. So, the message is, be as scathing as you like but just stick to the point. --dab (𒁳) 20:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

did i say i cared? who are you? a nobody. lol. you can yap about your WP policies all you want. it's tragic that people want to be mentally limited like this. like i said before, ridicule IS constructive. it only hurts pussies who A) don't want to adapt to reason and B) don't want to suffer the consequences. sorry, bud. you live in a bubble and i'm not coddling you. lol. maybe your mommy will. (talk) 07:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
hey i just found something hilarious: WP:Don't call a spade a spade versus WP:Call a spade a spade. Proof positive that WPedians are psychos. ROFL!

December 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Adonia, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Zachlipton (talk) 08:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.