": what is your suggestion then? My advice is to take a deep breath and wait until some sort of a consensus is reached: there is no point in smoothing out the intro of one country if dozens of others suffer from the same ""defect"". In a project such as Wikipedia, consistency is of paramount importance (in my view, at least). Best.    
 ::I will think very carefully about what you have written on my talk page just now. Perhaps a pragmatic solution will be found, but it will take time.    

 == Re: blindly reverting == 
 Every name form given in that intro is a current, commonly used title for the country (Kyrgyzstan, Kyrgyz Republic, and Kigizia). The two foreign languages used are the two main foreign languages in that country. I personally don't care about the IPA following every name, but I can see how people unfamiliar with the name might find it helpful. In short, the material in question is not ""shit"", as you so elegantly put it, but is important information which belongs at the beginning of the article, where the name is first provided. The discussions you mentioned show a case where the article lists names in 17 different languages for one thing. This is obviously not a similar situation.    
 :I guess we'll have to disagree. Note: I'm not saying remove the material, I'm saying much of it doesn't belong in the first sentence, making the intro unreadable.    
 ::If you're looking for simple intros, I suggest you help edit the Simple English Wikipedia. Those articles all need lots of work.    
 
 :::Oh pull your fucking head out of your ass, you smug arrogant moron. And then answer honestly, do you really think your edit made the article better? If so, then perhaps you shouldn't be editing Wikpedia at all.    
 
 :::Here's another question; why does all that translation, transliteration and in some cases etyomology and needless pronunciation have to be in the first sentence? Why? What's so magical about that particular spot, other than the fact that it fucks the entire introduction?   

 ::::Wow. Okay. I actually meant what I said, the Simple English Wikipedia has a lot of short articles that need to be expanded, and a lot of articles which need to be created. The Simple English Wikipedia is made to be less complex and detailed (such as no IPA or foreign languages in the intros), and therefore more readable, which is what you are arguing for, it seems like. I read the Simple English entries myself when the equivalent English Wikipedia article is too complex for me at first (like with quantum mechanics - but, like I said, it's short and needs to be expanded). The goals of Simple English Wikipedia seemed to fit your own, that's all. I was actually trying to be helpful.    
 
 :::::You aren't making any sense. Just because there happens to be a Simple English Wikipedia doesn't mean that it's ok to write shitty introductions on this Wikipedia.    

 == RE == 

 All of those wind farms are projects not completed farms.   

 == Fast inverse square root == 

 Thanks!  It was fun to write, once I wrapped my head around some of the concepts.  I was actually surprised there wasn't a wikipedia article on it when I started.    

 == Wikiquette alert == 
 I have opened a Wikiquette alert concerning your behavior here.    

 I have brought your response to the above mentioned WQA to the attention of administrators [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:TungstenCarbide here