User talk:71.16.30.178

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Eduard Einstein

See my note in the afd regarding Eduard Einstein. I didn't say the article was too short, I said it's not noteworthy. If you can convince me he's noteworthy, I'll be happy to withdraw. But we don't include relatives of famous people and we don't include schizophrenics — why would we include a relative of a famous person who happened to have schizophrenia? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stick to the facts. Speculation about people under 30, snide comments about my edits, etc., don't help determine the merit of the Eduard Einstein article. BTW - if you don't like my edits - this is Wikipedia - you can improve them as you see fit. My writing skill has no bearing on EE's noteworthiness. 71.16.30.178 18:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't begin the speculation about Paris Hilton and her dumb dog. It also wasn't me that claimed that the article was too short or that said that Eduard Einstein - whom I'd never even heard of before this - is more notable than Paris Hilton - who I'd heard of long before she even started getting on TV and movies. I'm sorry that Paris Hilton is far more popular and interesting than Albert Einstein's son - even if it's only because Hilton's a filthy whore. Ted Bundy is one of the lowest pieces of garbage to ever walk the earth and you'd get laughed off Wikipedia if you Afd'ed him. I'm also sorry your edits to the Einstein article look like a pathetic attempt to make him look noteworthy. If it wasn't in this situation, those edits would have been small one-line bulleted entries buried down in the references and external links section of the article, wouldn't they? You might as well have written, "he's really notable, really! Please, please, please don't delete him!" And you've misconstrued almost everything about this, from why I even nominated the article in the first place to why I commented about your edits to the article. I didn't say your edit style was bad - just where you put them. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
OK - now that you've blown off your steam on my user page, I would encourage you, after you calm down, to go back and re-read what you wrote to me. If you want to come back later and have a civil discussion, I'll still be around. 71.16.30.178 19:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm defending myself, not blowing off steam. And, again, I'm not the one that started leaving demands to "stick to the facts" on anyone's talk page. The circular nature of this bizarre exchange is pointless so this will be my last response. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)