User talk:74.39.182.161

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] April 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to CASTLE fight has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 03:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of CASTLE fight

An article that you have been involved in editing, CASTLE fight, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CASTLE fight. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Paulbrock (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Of idiots and other animals

I do believe that CASTLE flight may exist, however, before trying to sound smart, why don't you explain how editors on Wikipedia, having done their best to find verification of the existence of CASTLE flight and failed, are supposed to make the judgement to keep or to delete the article? Are you saying that if editors can't find verification for the existence of some subject matter, they should assume that they're too uneducated to know about it, and therefore let the article remain on Wikipedia? Moreover, what is "wiki-clout"? I have no "wiki-clout", and still feel free to give my opinion on articles. You seem to miss completely the point of Wikipedia - it's a free encyclopedia editable by everyone - everyone who happens to edit it - if nobody with the required knowledge on an article happens to be present at the deletion nomination process, and if no internet sources are found to verify the subject matter, then, logically (do you know logic?), the editors must conclude that the subject matter doesn't exist. It's done in good faith. Don't preach to me just because you know what CASTLE flight is. I'm not going to preach to you just because my particular area of study is law - if I encounter an article relevant to my area I may or may not edit it - if the editors aren't knowledgable about that area and they happen to make a judgement in good faith that the article should be deleted, then that's what they should do - unless somebody with the required knowledge intervenes. That's why you're given the chance to voice your opinion. You don't need "wiki-clout". Doh. Oh, and, when you wrote "Within the scientific and engineering community, there is a a need to communicate specific meaning which necessitates long sentences and technical words.", you kind of slipped on a banana peel there, didn't you? It's not only in the "scientific and engineering community" that "there is a a need to communicate specific meaning which necessitates long sentences and technical words", this is true of almost any subject which requires a tertiary level of education to be qualified in. Heh, or maybe you think that just because, say, a doctor is not an engineer, he can go about his exams by writing "The heart is shaped like an upside down pear, it's red and I'm pretty sure it pumps blood or something" - because he doesn't need long sentences or technical words, right? Get yourself a damn username and do some edits in your spare time instead of irritating me and writing jack-crap.

Oh, by the way, I'm a very occasional editor here, and am not "in need of a hobby", as you so idiotically put it. Maybe you're in need of a woman, as you strike me as being a real fucking wanker. Don't piss up the wrong tree from behind your computer, you fucking little shit. MaxCosta (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)