User talk:SnowyCinema/Clyde cancer cluster

Note to self:

DON'T FORGET TO do the following when finished:


 * Fix the references so that they don't repeat.
 * Delete any unnecessary stuff, kind of like the YouTube video statement or the website.
 * Read it over several times to make sure everything is worded in a way you like, and that there are no typos.
 * Make sure to make a good edit summary. The edit summary will say that "Everything on Wikipedia must follow material from sources. All sources in the article are considered reliable. This article reflects years of hard, persistent work and effort, and any insult to the article is a personal insult to myself, as if all that work meant absolutely nothing. Please appreciate the article for what it is, but feel free to edit it as you want."
 * After the article is done, I'm probably going to quit Wikipedia.

I'm back
Wikipedia is completely and entirely about reflection of the sources. My version of this article succeeds in its entirety to reflect the source material. Whether you like local news or not, local news is most of what we've got in this case, so take it or leave it? I say take it. Local news is not invalid, as many people do want to know information mentioned in local sources. If Encyclopedia Brittanica wrote something you didn't like since it seemed like "small town drama" to you, and thus you decided all material from Encyclopedia Brittanica should be removed from Wikipedia, you would have made a very big mistake. Wikipedia isn't about you. Don't like local news? Too bad. It still has to be included here in many instances.

I do understand that some things are indeed trivial. But what does trivial mean, anyway? Who are you to decide that some large amount of content is trivial and should be written off? You're not qualified for that with your mind alone. You must substantiate yourself with more than that. I have numerous citations to support that my claims in this article are valid, and your claims that these statements are invalid are not supported by anything but yourselves. Things that were truly too trivial for Wikipedia's worth would fail to be mentioned in at least a small variety of sources. Almost every fact stated on this article has more than 1 reference, and most of the time these references come from different news outlets (which is, again, the only thing we really have to work with).

I believe I have seen the entire picture of the "Clyde cancer cluster" as far as it can be seen by Wikipedia's standards. Have you? Also, I have years of direct experience with the town of Clyde and particularly with research on the town's history. I remember a lot of this stuff happening. I know of a lot of the people mentioned in these news sources (though I am not friends with them). I know what I'm talking about. I don't believe you do.

Also, you spent a period of at most several hours, but I think it was actually more like 10 minutes, looking through my content to decide it was "poorly written", while I spent months and months compiling all this as perfectly as I possibly can. "Poorly written" is unfounded. I doubt you can find even as many as 50 large errors with my writing (that's a challenge to you by the way if you think you can). If you go as far as to call someone's writing "poorly written" you better have a damn good reason for it. And I mean a DAMN good reason. Because what you're saying when you say "poorly written" is that their writing is about the lowest of the low. What you're saying is that my writing looks equivalent to that of a middle-school slacker in 6th grade English class. Many can agree that my writing is far superior to that. I am writing at the college level at least. Maybe "mediocre" at least would be a more respectable word, since "poor" indicates that the user was not even trying. When I think of "poor", I think of obvious spelling errors, grammatical errors such as the forgetting of periods and commas, misuse of colons and semicolons, etc. I've definitely seen poorly written Wikipedia articles so I know what they look like, and they definitely are a lot worse than this one, if you can even call this one "bad" by any means. I clearly have worked very hard on this, and have kept my article to English grammatical standards. I mean, I am an administrator on Wiktionary, the dictionary sister project. I don't think I would get that position with all support votes if my grammar and structure was so horrible as you so claim.

That you have dismissed my work in such a crude manner is ill-founded. Your attitude, especially in relation to the previous paragraph I wrote, is what drives perfectly good contributors away from Wikipedia, one of the most wonderful projects to ever exist. Driving away contributors is bad. Wikipedia needs all it can get. I guess I can't really say you were being mean, but it was pretty borderline to that. Your statements were not direct personal attacks, and I admit I was probably more frustrated than I needed to be. I semi-retired from Wikipedia over this, because I needed some time off to say the least. However, I see the reason for being so frustrated is because you called my writing poor after I clearly worked very, very hard to accomplish the feats I did. I, in particular, am a poor writer in your mind. I, in comparison to all the contributors to this project, am particularly poor. I, in comparison to any writer, anywhere, in any place, am particularly poor. Really? I know I might be a bit solipsist by saying this, but I really don't think that's even nearly true. The semantics you used were particularly off-putting for that reason. Use better semantics, please, for the love of humanity. Describe what would really make sense in context.

Anyway, I understand that there are jerks out there, or whatever I should call you after this. Wikipedia is bound to have them since "anyone can edit." But that shouldn't discourage me from writing here. For the project is about the project, not so much about the people. So hopefully we can discontinue our interaction. You've pissed me off. Please keep from pissing me off anymore as it is not just disrespectful to me, but also not beneficial to the project. Let me share my knowledge and hard work with the world. And think about it, maybe I wouldn't dismiss your advice you give me if you presented it a little better. Next time you nag someone about their article, try not to take it to the greatest extreme you can without it being a personal attack.

(I'm still not convinced that IP and Geogene are not the same person...or something suspicious like that. That IP just has to be watching this page from an account in order to see it so immediately after any edits are made to it. I barely believe the IP refreshes this talk page every day or even every other day for years on end to see if new posts come in. I mean, it was like a 2-year gap! See what I did there? I made a harsh statement, but I made it with at least a little evidence or logical connections to back it up. You don't even have the patience to do that. It's a pretty simple art, that whole arguing thing.)

If anyone should comment on this article, let it be someone else next time. To the next people, do research before you make statements, as I have done. Do lots of it, as I have done. If you think my writing is indeed "poor," which means horrible, give very good reasons to say so. Very, very, very good reasons. And give those reasons, as in say them. Don't just say "your writing is poor because potatoes." If you say poor, write at least several paragraphs backing up that statement. If you can't prove writing is poor, call it something at least a little better than "poor." PseudoSkull (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)