User talk:200.104.240.11

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider creating an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (200.104.240.11) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 01:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! SummerPhD (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Prior to leaving this comment, I have made 55 edits from this IP address. You are obviously aware that for 53 of those, I left an edit summary. You are further aware that over many years I have left edit summaries on virtually every single edit I've ever made. Your absurdly patronising message can only have been intended as a provocation. As it happens, one of the two for which I did not leave a summary was the addition of a single character, a space [1]. The other one was the removal of a peacock word, which I had done previously and explained clearly [2] and which you had restored without explanation.[3]

As for your latest campaign to undo my work ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]), I note that you previously undid all these edits without explaining why in the edit summary. Now, at least, you've attempted to come up with a post hoc justification. However, it is not a reasonable one. The word "allision" is obsolete in normal usage, and is generally used only in maritime contexts. If you look at google ngrams, you can see that the word "collision" appears several thousand times more frequently in a representative corpus than "allision" does. Looking at examples of where it appears, at least a quarter of them appear to be misspellings of Allison, and the rest are from specialist literature. Edit warring to force the inclusion of a word which is not in general use does not seem to be productive behaviour.

Your entirely unnecessary template about edit summaries was a blatant attempt to provoke me. Yet another tranche of needless reverts of my work, in that light, also appears to have been done solely to provoke. To see you attacking me once again within 14 hours of my first edit from this IP exceeds my lowest expectations.

I hope that User:Drmies and User:Yngvadottir would like to express their opinions about this matter. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hey all, I'm making dinner, the girls are chatting me up, and I'm really really really hungry and I'm all out of glucose tablets. I promise I'll check back in with the appropriate knowledge of allision and collision and collusion. 23:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Allision is "literary and rare", according to the OED, though it cites one recent instance from 2004: "Ginger and her john apparently embraced, clothes rustling, the allision of their shoes on the floorboards." Drmies (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

SummerPhD, you know perfectly well who you were reverting. The edit summary box was needless, as anyone can see who looks at this IP's edit history. The OED agrees that "allision" is not in common parlance, and I don't see why we should use it in a general-audience encyclopedia; it's specific maritime usage is a. not appropriate for us and b. not verified in Wiktionary. The best thing you can do, for all of us, is to stay away from this editor and their edits. IP, next time please don't hit "undo" but just redo the edit. It's more work, but it avoids needless needling. I have restored all the above edits. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know who it is. I didn't say otherwise.

The "allision" issue is mentioned in several hidden comments removed by the IP without explanation.[13][14][15] It is my feeling that edits contrary to hidden comments deserve -- at the very least -- an edit summary explaining why.

(Yes, I have reverted edits from this user in the past without explanation when those edits were made in defiance of a block. Yes, "without further explanation". Let it go.) The revisions being discussed here were explained in edit summaries. This is not edit warring in any sense: My original reverts (of the block evasion) without explanation were valid, the IP reverted without explanation, I undid those reverts with explanatory edit summaries and requested discussion. (Yes, the IP did make an edit without a summary involving one space. No one complained about that edit and it has nothing to do with the present discussion.)

My research did not find any indication that the word was in any way archaic. Previously, I had run across a somewhat similar situation with "accident" vs. "incident". (Apparently, in aviation a terrorist bombing is an "incident" if no one dies, an "accident" if there were deaths. We worked it out, agreeing the particular sentence was not needed and, if restored, should be reworded to avoid the confusion.[16]) Currently, Wikipedia says a collision involves "two or more moving bodies". Wiktionary has allide: "(nautical) To impact a stationary object", consistent with the hidden comments removed without explanation.

I do not see a problem with explaining bolide ("a term related to meteors and meteorites. There is no consensus on the definition of a bolide, so there are specific definitions used by several groups and fields.").[17] Heck, I'd go one step further and replace it with "fireball", but that's me. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• I also don't see a problem with explaining "bolide" and have reverted. Yes, they removed hidden comments, but they did supply edit summaries, so I see no problem with that: in my opinion the hidden comments were...exaggerated. I saw that one of those comments had a link to Merriam Webster, but that's not available to me and I place more stock in the OED anyway--certainly more than in Wiktionary. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Just looking in after getting up; getting ready for work shortly. Cursory research shows that allision is used in maritime law to maintain the distinction. I see Drmies has checked the edits and re-reverted in a number of cases, but if it matters, folks from WikiProject Ships will probably be back to change it again. I'd urge you to let it go if they do, although we could probably do with an article section somewhere explaining the usage. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

hidden comments removed by the IP without explanation...It is my feeling that edits contrary to hidden comments deserve -- at the very least -- an edit summary explaining why. You are fully aware that I left edit summaries for all of those edits. You specifically mention three articles where you dishonestly claim that I left no explanation, but you posted diffs that were not of my edits. Here are the edits: rm jargon,rm nautical jargon. it is not the correct term if you're writing an encyclopaedia for general readership. It's just pretentious in that case., "correct" for nautical documents maybe. For an english language encyclopaedia, it is not the correct term.

If your research didn't find any indication that the word was archaic, I think that suggests that you didn't do any research at all. Or perhaps your google search results are wildly different to mine, which give Merriam Webster as the very first result; "obsolete" is the very first word of that result.

User:Drmies and User:Yngvadottir, thank you for your input. I note that SummerPhD hasn't acknowledged that they set out to provoke me but I see no other possible explanation for their behaviour.

Regarding bolide, to me it would be preferable to use one term - I originally thought bolide with a link to the article was certainly sufficient, but I think meteor would probably be best. bolide ("fireball") just looks weird. The quotes make it unclear what meaning is intended by fireball, and I suspect many readers would not suspect that a meteor is actually what is being discussed. As for "allision", if people should restore it, I'd argue that this would be unwise, as it's simply not a word that most general readers have ever come across and there is a clear and unambiguous normal word that does the job. But let's see if anyone does object to the recent changes. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Yes, your edits are going to be fairly heavily scrutinized for a while. You cannot reasonably expect otherwise. If reverting several of your edits were an attempt to provoke you, your 20 or so edits starting at 12:44, November 6, 2014 would be you provoking me. I don't think it was, YMMV.

Your first search result seems to be this. Yes, the first definition is obsolete. The second definition, "the running of one ship upon another ship that is stationary —distinguished from collision", is what we are discussing. When I said I researched it, a good faith assumption would be that I researched it. That you found something different (apparently ignoring the Wikipedia and Wiktionary results above) does not justify an assumption of bad faith.

You did revert several edits without explanatory edit summaries. I did not provide links intending to show them as I thought they were obvious. Most of your 20 or so edits starting with 12:44, November 6, 2014 give the automated summary "‎(Undid revision ######### by SummerPhD (talk))", which does not explain what you are changing or why. In addition to other edits without summaries, including several with links to the relevant definition on Wiktionary, you made these edits removing explanations for keeping "allision":[18][19][20][21].

Yes, I disagreed with several of your edits. Editors will disagree. Sometimes you are right, sometimes you are wrong, sometimes it's a matter of opinion (your opinion might or might not "win"). When someone disagrees with you, you can let it go. You can discuss the issue. You can assume bad faith, fight to defend your position escalate into edit warring and personal attacks. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know who you are, though from the above it looks like I'm expected to — but I just noticed the edits you made today and came here to thank you for them. You do good work. Bishonen | talk 13:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC).