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

Your recent editing history at Basilosaurus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --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]