User contributions for 85.193.252.19
15 March 2022
- 11:4711:47, 15 March 2022 diff hist +251 User talk:85.193.252.19 →Yes, I still remember you: I am pleasantly surprised
5 March 2022
- 17:4917:49, 5 March 2022 diff hist +964 User talk:Mathglot →I hope you still remember me: new section
- 16:2316:23, 5 March 2022 diff hist +13 No-fly zone "reduced the attractiveness of" is clearer than "made (...) unappealing" Tag: Reverted
- 16:0916:09, 5 March 2022 diff hist −1 Washingtonian movement Even if you don't understand the illogicality of "all but disappeared" you should agree that "almost disappeared" is much more common, hence easier to understand, unless the percentage of something left after disappearance differs in the two cases. If so then which percentage is higher, and how do you know which one is correct? Besides, the reverted edit must ACTUALLY make the article WORSE, see WP:DONTREVERT. Tags: Undo Reverted
- 15:4515:45, 5 March 2022 diff hist −6 Limelight Your reason is not enough to revert my edit. The reverted edit must ACTUALLY make the article WORSE, see WP:DONTREVERT. Wikipedia is for everyone, and the mere existence of Simple English Wikipedia should not be an excuse to make our articles hard to understand. My edit improves readability. Tags: Undo Reverted
- 10:5110:51, 5 March 2022 diff hist −1 Caning "ran away" is much more common than "absconded", and readability matters, see WP:MOS @User:Lognomm Tag: Reverted
2 March 2022
- 16:4016:40, 2 March 2022 diff hist −13 Straw man redundancy
- 11:2811:28, 2 March 2022 diff hist −4 Ducted fan "minimal vibration" suggests vibration below some level, or even that we have a choice between many levels and we should choose the minimal one. Unfortunately this is not the case, and we do not even know what that minimal level is. So my proposal is "low vibration". Tag: Reverted
28 February 2022
- 22:0222:02, 28 February 2022 diff hist +7 No-fly zone "dampened the appeal of military intervention"? Oh please, less poetry, more readability. My proposal: "reduced the attractiveness of..."
27 February 2022
- 09:5809:58, 27 February 2022 diff hist +9 Anders Fogh Rasmussen Ok, so Ginnerup is in Jutland, but in which country is Jutland? Maybe it is obvious for Danes, but I had to click on Jutland to see the country name. So, why not make life easier by adding the country name?
26 February 2022
- 17:5417:54, 26 February 2022 diff hist −6 Limelight We do not need "since" to convey the same message. "long since" as "long before now" is an illogical idiomatic phrase, and can be confusing. "since" makes sense when refers to a particular moment in the past that we have already mentioned. For example: "She graduated four years ago and has since married." "Since" refers to "four years ago", and after that time she got married. Tag: Reverted
24 February 2022
- 13:2913:29, 24 February 2022 diff hist +5 Whonix clarity; Please, don't use "as" when you mean "because"
21 February 2022
- 08:1408:14, 21 February 2022 diff hist −5 James Webb Space Telescope The simple present tense seems to be more natural here because those statements are still true today and will be true for years to come.
17 February 2022
- 07:4807:48, 17 February 2022 diff hist +87 Informal fallacy @User:Phlsph7: You seem to confuse color saturation with its brightness. "Pale color" means low color saturation, which (in colloquial language) implicates that something is ALSO relatively bright but not necessarily VERY bright. Try Google: "pale red". The results should make you think. I agree that "bright" is better as a contrast to "dark" but let's not twist the facts to fit the theory, if you like philosophy :-)
- 06:4806:48, 17 February 2022 diff hist 0 Bee Gees So "it ONLY (briefly?) appeared on...". Was it the intended meaning? If so, then feel free to revert my edit. Probably you did not use the modifier "ONLY" to emphasize "appeared", but "numerous bootlegs". To put it simply: If you "ONLY KISSED her" you did not have sex with her, but if you "kissed ONLY HER" you simply did not kiss other girls.
14 February 2022
- 07:1507:15, 14 February 2022 diff hist −7 High-speed rail "in excess of"? Do we need 3 words instead of one?
13 February 2022
- 16:0116:01, 13 February 2022 diff hist −1 Apis cerana indica "can be READILY distinguished" can be understood as "can be WILLINGLY distinguished" and even though it would not make sense in the context, why not use a more common and precise word: "EASILY"? Tag: Reverted
- 14:1814:18, 13 February 2022 diff hist −91 Informal fallacy "Light" as an adjective means "pale" (see https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/light_2), which means "light in color; containing a lot of white" (see https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/pale_1)
- 06:4206:42, 13 February 2022 diff hist −72 Informal fallacy →Fallacies of ambiguity: A great example, but the adjective "light" is rarely used as "bright". My proposal is "containing a lot of white", in other words "pale". Also, I changed the format, so now the user has direct access to both meanings. Tag: Reverted
10 February 2022
- 22:4022:40, 10 February 2022 diff hist −94 Communication design 1."intervention"? rather influence or impact 2. There is no need to list the variety of media. 3. "aside from" is ambiguous, and can mean either "except for" or "in addition to". And though the context does help, why not use a more precise word, which by the way is more common?
- 21:3121:31, 10 February 2022 diff hist 0 International non-governmental organization "aside from" is ambiguous, and can mean either "except for" or "in addition to". And though the context does help, why not use a more precise word, which by the way is more common?
- 20:5820:58, 10 February 2022 diff hist 0 List of nearest known black holes "aside from" is ambiguous, and can mean either "except for" or "in addition to". And though the context does help, why not use a more precise word, which by the way is more common?
- 20:3320:33, 10 February 2022 diff hist 0 Fansite "aside from" is ambiguous, and can mean either "except for" or "in addition to". And though the context does help, why not use a more precise word, which by the way is more common? Tag: Reverted
2 February 2022
- 17:4617:46, 2 February 2022 diff hist −1 Washingtonian movement readability: very common but VERY illogical Tag: Reverted
- 17:4517:45, 2 February 2022 diff hist −1 Kelp forest readability: very common but VERY illogical Tag: Reverted
- 17:4017:40, 2 February 2022 diff hist −1 Clifford, Illinois readability: very common but VERY illogical Tag: Reverted
- 17:3917:39, 2 February 2022 diff hist −1 Baltimore Marathon readability: very common but VERY illogical Tag: Reverted
- 17:3717:37, 2 February 2022 diff hist −1 Monohon, Washington readability: very common but VERY illogical
- 17:3517:35, 2 February 2022 diff hist −1 Fox Sports World Canada readability: very common but VERY illogical Tag: Reverted
1 February 2022
- 23:1623:16, 1 February 2022 diff hist −12 Device fingerprint empty citation link removed
- 20:2820:28, 1 February 2022 diff hist +9 Straw man →Examples: "primary" is a bit ambiguous and confusing here; emphasis on "extremely hot" and "real"
- 16:2116:21, 1 February 2022 diff hist +45 Straw man →Examples: A discussion is not necessarily a debate to be won, so I replaced it with something more natural.
31 January 2022
- 22:3322:33, 31 January 2022 diff hist +515 Straw man →Examples: I think that the first example should be very simple - so I added one.
30 January 2022
- 23:1323:13, 30 January 2022 diff hist −1 Fish hook It may be less stressful for the fisher, but the fish does not understand technology. Does the fish get more stressed at the sight of a barbed hook ;-)
- 20:5220:52, 30 January 2022 diff hist +7 User talk:Mr. D. E. Mophon →January 2022: copy-edit
- 20:5020:50, 30 January 2022 diff hist +971 Wikipedia talk:Don't shoot yourself in the foot →Why do we warn anyone?: new section
- 17:0317:03, 30 January 2022 diff hist −714 Door Patent nonsense deleted. Was it a hoax?
28 January 2022
- 21:3321:33, 28 January 2022 diff hist +56 Breakup I understand that language evolves, and "break-up" gradually changes into "breakup", but - according to Google - the first is still more common than the latter, and what's more, "breakup" does not exist in most dictionaries!
27 January 2022
- 17:4917:49, 27 January 2022 diff hist −38 Anal hook "less forgiving" is ambiguous, redundant and too informal. If something is less forgiving, it can be can BE easily damaged or can easily CAUSE damages. Though you can guess it from the context, the additional information you get is redundant.
- 15:5815:58, 27 January 2022 diff hist −5 UFO (band) readability: In the current context "hiatus" is a formal and less common word for "break". According to Google "the band had a break" is 8 times more common than "the band had a hiatus" Tag: Reverted
- 02:4402:44, 27 January 2022 diff hist −20 Predicament bondage readability + clarity: "regularly" is redundant and ambiguous; rephrased to: "and stand while forcing a rope to pull and painfully stretch their genitals."
- 02:1702:17, 27 January 2022 diff hist −29 Existential crisis "It may be commonly, but not necessarily, tied to..."? It is much too wordy. How about "It is often tied to..."? Besides, either something is common or not, unless we have no idea what we are writing about :-) But in such a case we should write that the frequency is unknown.
25 January 2022
- 13:2713:27, 25 January 2022 diff hist +30 Articulating screen LCD is no criterion, it can be also OLED, AMOLED, or something that will emerge in the future. It is simply a built-in small electronic visual display which is not fixed.
- 03:4003:40, 25 January 2022 diff hist 0 James Webb Space Telescope grammar fixed: "This meant that most infrared telescopes had a lifespan limited by their coolant,..."
- 01:3801:38, 25 January 2022 diff hist +587 Talk:Collective noun →"one kind of thing" or "one kind of things"?: new section
24 January 2022
- 02:3002:30, 24 January 2022 diff hist +1 Collective noun The common phrase "one kind of thing" is like "one kind of individual thing", which does not make much sense. If you have only ONE thing you cannot have neither one nor more "KINDS OF IT". For example there is only one planet Earth so "one kind of Earth" does not make sense. You need at least two things in order to use the word "kind of", but then only "kind of THINGS" makes sense. Tag: Reverted
23 January 2022
- 21:0221:02, 23 January 2022 diff hist +11 Collective noun clarity
- 20:4120:41, 23 January 2022 diff hist −2 Collective noun Illogical definition. The word "group" is not an example of "one kind of thing". The phrase "one kind of thing" is too close to "such as", while the subject "Most collective nouns" is too far from it. This is a pretty serious mistake for an article relating to grammar.
- 20:0720:07, 23 January 2022 diff hist +2 Prelude to the Russian invasion of Ukraine "100,000 troops" is ambiguous and even misleading because it can be read as "100,000 troops of soldiers" though the intended meaning was "100,000 INDIVIDUAL soldiers". How would you interpret the phrase: "one or two troops"? One troop is never one person, but two? How is it that rational beings communicate with such illogical language? For lack of a better word we can use an expanded definition of "soldier" as "any member of armed forces".
- 03:1403:14, 23 January 2022 diff hist +5 Wikipedia talk:Don't shoot yourself in the foot →My edit improved by you.: typo
 | This is the contributions page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.
|