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
  .
  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
  .
  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