User talk:TruthSetter

asshole

You wrote "Learn to write in complete sentences and in English before you dumb everybody down, asshole."

You seem to be confused. First of all, I wrote none of the article you seem to object to. The only thing I did was to restore it to an earlier version to reverse your change. In doing so, I believe the quality of the article was improved. Commentary on the quality of an article is not encyclopaedic, and does not, therefore, belong in the article, itself. This is why I removed your comment.

Secondly, I agree with you that the article is of rather poor quality, and it is useful to point this out. The most constructive way to do that, however, is to use the article's discussion page. You'll note that the article is also now tagged with a cleanup tag. (Not my doing, but thanks to SteinbDJ.)

Adding a cleanup tag or even just stating what you think is wrong with the article on the discussion page would have been helpful in and of itself. Even better would be to take the time to rewrite the article to a decent standard of quality; but nevermind, someone will get around to doing this eventually. In the meantime, a poorly written article on an encyclopaedic topic containing a few correct facts is surely better than no article at all. In general I would hate to dissuade people who know relevant facts, but have poor command of English from contributing to Wikipedia. Someone can always improve the writing later.

In this case, however, I am concerned that the article may constitute a copyright violation. I have reported this fact.

I think your personal attack on me was unwarranted --- apart from the sheer lack of courtesy you displayed, every factual claim you made was in error: I did not write any of the article in question. As you can see, my command of the English language is, if not perfect (I'm sure I make the occasional spelling, and even grammar error), at least competent. You can be forgiven for not knowing this, since you don't know me, but I am also not an "asshole". I also do not know who you are, but from the behaviour I have observed, I am led to suspect that you are, however. On the other hand, I expect you'd behave a lot better if people knew who you were.

Since I have a little anonymity, I cannot resist an attack of my own. Really, I shouldn't stoop to your level, but it gives me a fleeting moment of satisfaction:

You are a coward. --210.86.71.84 10:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)