User talk:SHFW70

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]

What we keep in articles, or how we say it, is decided upon by consensus. That is a Wkipedia policy. Consensus is not achieved by stifling discussion in the tone you are uusing. If you WP:edit war to insist upon your WP:Point, you will be blocked.

You are also getting dangerously close to a possibly longer block for blatant WP:Civil, and WP:personal attack. It's up to you whether you wish to be considered a valuable contributor to your areas of expertise, or not, and avoid being prevented by editing, but you are expected to play by Wikipedia rules. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could care less what a bunch of wikipedians who know nothing about the subject at hand have to say. Nice bold font. SHFW70 (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3rr violation

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Basilosaurus. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Kev min § 04:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How stupid would someone have to be to not know that a rorqual is a whale on a goddamn article about a freaking whale? Oh, no, but it's rude to make someone spend a couple seconds clicking a link and skimming over a page about the obvious. Please. SHFW70 (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have already gone past the limit of acceptable reverts, and I could block you now without further ado. However, I'm being lenient here in the hope that we won't have to do without your 'expertise'. By which I mean your subject knowledge rather than telling us how to manage Wikipedia content against consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned

And you didn't listen. Therefore I have blocked this account indefinitely for continued personal attacks and general aggressive behaviour. Please note that this does not mean permanently, if you are able to show that you are capable of contributing in that constructive and helpful manner as per the fourth pillar I will be happy to unblock you--Jac16888 ^Talk 12:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I have a genuine question to ask you though. What about the paragraphs or pages (e.g. Filter feeder, Paleontology in Michigan, Sauropoda, any page about whales) where the context was clear that a rorqual is a type of whale yet it was still reverted back to "rorqual whale"? I even pointed this out in several of my edit summaries yet Epipelagic would still change it? SHFW70 (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care in the slightest, it's not about the edits it's about your behaviour. Edit summaries are not for discussion, if somebody is reverting you then you discuss instead of just reverting back--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, including the word "whale" is fine in those contexts. Authors do it in scholarly works even when it is clear that it is about whales, so it is ok for Wikipedia as well, generally. If there is some dispute about which wording is best it would have to be discussed on a case-by-case basis, as is usual with such wording discussions. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that you went on GoogleScholar and typed in "rorqual whale" and noted that several authors who evidently don't know the meaning of the term used it incorrectly. That doesn't mean we should repeat their mistakes. It's redundant, plain and simple. The end. The page is entitled just "rorqual", not "rorqual whale" or some other scientifically redundant term. SHFW70 (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, the content of the dispute is of no consequence, if you're not unable to contribute in a civil manner then Wikipedia is better off without you--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Have a bunch of idiots who are too preoccupied with including a single redundant word on pages that involve subjects they know little to nothing about editing all your articles. Even Flaming Camosa was googling shit and didn't know jack about any of the pages he was editing. Fuck off and godspeed. SHFW70 (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you continue to exhibit the same behaviour that led to your block I have protected this page from editing for 3 months. If after that time you feel that you've matured enough that you won't resort to making personal attacks and having petty arguments about single words then please feel free to request an unblock--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]