User talk:85.193.215.210

WP:VPP

Please don't use a page meant to discuss WP policy for chatting. In fact, please don't use any page on WP for chatting. There are no doubt dozens of website where this kind of discussion would be welcomed. WP is not one of them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:Floquenbeam I think that what we see on the main page has something to do with the Wikipedia policy. And because, as an IP editor, I could not place my question on the main page talk, then I used WP:VPP. As for chatting, I will follow your advice :-) 85.193.215.210 (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Just FYI, you can always make a post at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit to have your comments copied over to any protected talkpages. Alternatively you can place {{edit semi-protected|page to be edited}} (using the template for extended or full instead as appropriate) on your own talkpage if you prefer. Finally you can just informally ask a friend to copy things over for you. Unless your dealing with a fast-moving talkpage it works just fine. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@User:74.73.224.126 This is probably good advice. Unfortunately, I decide to quit Wikipedia. Anyway, thank you. Regards. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 86.187.235.123 (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

LTA

I see you're accusing several IPs as being WP:LTA/BKFIP. I don't think the majority of these IPs are them based on the LTA page. I suggest you reconsider this before it's seen as a personal attack. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@User:Blaze Wolf Okay, thanks.

And thank you for this rerevert :-)

No problem Some of the edits I understood but that one I didn't see the reason behind at all. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Mr. Desultory

I would thank you for your help with the matter - however, that could be misinterpreted as us having collaborated in some way on the matter via a backchannel, which is (understandably) frowned upon. I'm not sure why the editor is so fixated on the word, there are other words that are more approachable, such as 'aimless' or 'scattered' or 'haphazard'. Checking google ngram, 'desultory' is rarely used any more - as I tried pointing out to the editor, we're to write for a general audience, which using rarely employed terms is contrary to. c'est la vie. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@anastrophe Should we be afraid, really? The user in question does not. And I reported them to WP:BKFIP. So, do not worry and be happy :-)

Not afraid per se, merely wishing to avoid giving opportunity to false accusations. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is life, and everything is possible, and reducing the risk makes sense. Sorry about not too serious tone but I have always taken Wikipedia seriously and, after 15 years of editing, I feel disappointed. There are too many narcissists and psychopaths here, and they prey on people like you and me. Cheers. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed in full. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

86.187.165.112

I don't know whether the other ip editor is or is not BKF. In the text in Kelp forest both word choices are acceptable. I don't think either of you should edit war about this. Invasive Spices (talk) 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Invasive Spices "Acceptable" is not enough. There is also something like readability. So if both versions are equally acceptable, we should choose the more readable one, especially that my version is much more acceptable. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Invasive Spices, please retract 'either of you'. I haven't engaged in any edit warring. 'Mr. Desultory' most certainly has, however, including using uncivil language in edit summaries. That tips the scales. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: I agree you have not. I was refering to 86.187.165.112. Unfortunately my idea that I could use the same section for a similar problem was a disaster. I have separated the sections. Invasive Spices (talk) 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, not a big deal. And thanks. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Both may be acceptable but all but is certainly better. The notion that we should replace it simply because someone from Poland finds it somehow "illogical" is, I hope you would agree, ridiculous. 109.144.219.119 (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Before you started calling me an incompetent troll your typical arguments were like these:

1. I changed the meaning
2. I made the article worse

The second argument is merely a simple implication of the first one, and only if the new meaning reflects the source material less accurately. So the changed meaning can make the article better as well. In other words, every time you accuse somebody of changing the intended meaning you assume that the new meaning is further from the intended one. But what if it is closer? The very idea of creating Wikipedia articles is describing something based on what was written in sources. But editors cannot do it by a simple copy and paste operation, they describe something by using their own words, which means an inevitable subjective interpretation. And the initial word may be chosen randomly from many synonyms, even by the same editor.

It is never the same original meaning, but it should be as close as possible to the original. So, at most you can only try to prove that the new meaning is further from the original. The only way to do so is compare both versions with the source. You did not do it. You did not even explain the difference between "all but disappeared" and "almost disappeared". Maybe you think that "all but" is the stronger version of "almost". And indeed, the Longman dictionary defines it as "almost completely", but the rest of the most prestigious dictionaries define it as "almost". So, probably the Longman is wrong.

Let me give you a simple example. If last year I saw 100 pigeons in the park, and now I see only 5, then I can say "They almost disappeared", but what if if their number reduced to 2? Should I say: "They all but disappeared"? If you are convicted that the intended meaning was "almost completely" then change it to "almost completely", but "all but" is the worst choice.

You claim that I might as well replace "fifteen" with "fiveteen". [1]. This is a straw man argument. No, I would never do it. "fiveteen" may sound more logical, especially for [to] non-native speakers, but it is ungrammatical, though in fact it is an obsolete form of fifteen.

You want me to believe that I am just unable to understand some nuances in language because I am not a native English speaker. In psychology this is known as gaslighting. For example, in this revert they [you] instruct me: "don't change meanings that you don't understand".

I reported your new IP to WP:BKFIP. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Very well said. It pretty well (or should I say "all but") puts the other IP's overtly bigoted "someone from Poland" malediction into the realm of laughing-out-loud. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@anastrophe "overtly bigoted (...) malediction"? Did you mean "openly prejudiced curse"? But "curse" does not match the rest. Or was your choice of words meant as sarcasm, to show that readability matters? Please, clarify :-) 85.193.215.210 (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Sarcasm? I would never! :) cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

---