User talk:Scramblecase

writing style
My real style in WP is to use simple words in very short posts. Alas, the way the WP system operates in on listing "diffs" and a short comment on each when dealing with noticeboards. This is sort of a social problem here, to be sure. For encyclopedia articles, my view is that we should use no more than a sixth grade vocabulary level as recommended im various places. When called upon, I can be as sesquipedalian as anyone. Magazine articles can use the nomenclature common to the field involved - "perce en scie" is not something one finds in everyday use, as an example. In any case, senior admins, such as Lar, know who I am, and I assure you that they are unlikely to think we are one! By my calculations, I have now written several million words online, and read four billion words or more online. Collect (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Understood, Collect - as I said, no offense meant. When I'm writing casually or quickly, I don't get quite so, as my niece and nephew would say, "high-falutin'" either.  Perhaps Lar could weigh in on the WQA to clear this up once and for all, as Ratel's continued accusations - and, naturally, avoidance of any actual topics - is growing tiresome. Scramblecase (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I mean this kindly
But I'll be straight. Wikipedia didn't fail you. Other editors didn't fail you. The establishment didn't circle the wagons to protect the idiot son gone amok on the slutty SPAs who don't matter. The laments on your user page and elsewhere about the unfairness/wrongness/stupidness of Wikipedia policy or etiquette do not make you noble or somehow above it all. Your qualifications and professional life don't matter. Your past edits don't matter. Your intents don't matter. What does matter is that everyone can edit Wikipedia. Get what that really means, and you will get Wikipedia. Your choice, though; it's not for everyone. Flowanda | Talk 03:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)