User talk:LitanyOfBoredom

Welcome!

Hi LitanyOfBoredom! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! TJMSmith (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why did you revert my edits?

You reverted my edits on the page Argument from ignorance. For the time being i have reverted it back and you claimed that my edits were imprecise and grammatically suspect and informal. And I would like to ask to justify each one of those charges. What was gramatically suspect according to you? What was imprecise? And what do you mean by "informal" and what was infromal? Adityaverma8998 (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.

Grammatically suspect:

"If some proposition has not yet been proved true,"

Past tense verbs in the passive voice should always use the past participle ("proven").

Informal:

"we are not entitled on that ground alone"

First-person pronouns ("we") are too informal for a technical article.

Imprecise:

"to conclude that it is false and vice versa"

"Vice versa" is too ambiguous for a technical article.

More examples from your other edits:

"in which a something" (from Questionable cause) is obviously grammatically incorrect

"that is not really the cause of something else" (from Questionable cause) "really" here is informal and unnecessary

"The two events may coincide, but have no causal connection." (from Questionable cause). "but have no causal connection" is not an independent clause and should not be offset by a comma

"Its a fallacy in which an event" (from Post hoc ergo propter hoc) "Its" is missing an apostrophe, and contractions generally should not be used in technical writing. LitanyOfBoredom (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of your revisions are simply poorly written and leave the article in a worse state than before you touched them. Even the title of your message on my talk page demonstrates a poor grasp of the English language. "Please explain why did you revert my edits?" starts as an imperative sentence but suddenly becomes interrogative halfway through. The correct phrasing would be, "Please explain why you reverted my edits" with no question mark. LitanyOfBoredom (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]