User talk:8.9.93.141

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions to Henry Jaglom and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Benevolent human (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Hello, I'm Wikinights. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Tasso ham—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. WIKINIGHTS _talk 14:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please explain why my edit does not appear constructive to you. Before my edit, the article alternated using the terms "shoulder" and "butt", which could confuse readers who don't already know that they're the same thing. And a link pipe changed "sodium nitrite" to "nitrites", which gives less information, not more, without adding any benefit that I can see.

I never "experiment" when I edit WP articles. I know all about sandboxes. I've been editing WP for well over 15 years; for many years I used an account, but I choose to edit anonymously now, which is perfectly acceptable by WP standards.

I am always careful to explain my edits as clearly and specifically as I can, and I will appreciate your likewise explaining why you reverted my edit more specifically than just that "it did not appear constructive" to you.

Thank you.—8.9.93.141 (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I chose to revert instantly when I saw the "shoulder (also calked the butt)". This is nonsensical without context. The word butt is also a red flag for vandalism. But thank you for correcting a bad call.

I had no idea that you have made over 50 edits on this IP address alone. The anti-vandalism templates default to warning about test edits at the first or second warning, and then proceed to harsher accusations. The reason your edits get flagged by anti-vandalism algorithms (ORES, which feeds data to Huggle) is that you are an unregistered IP editor. The algorithms flag non-vandalism all the time, but are better than no pre-sorting at all. I recommend that you register for an account if you do not want to risk reversions of your good edits. WIKINIGHTS _talk 15:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Please undo your reversion of my edit to that article and state that your reversion was a mistake. And since we're in advice-giving mode, I advise you to be more cautious about using a mindless robot to root out vandalism without verifying that the attack is justified. Your recklessness has made me want to quit editing Wikipedia, and the solution is NOT for me to seek the cover of a WP account. Your over-eager vandal-hunt is violating Wikipedia's policy of encouraging ALL good-faith editors, even when they choose to edit anonymously.—8.9.93.141 (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Nice grammar catch

Nice grammar catch (here) at Martha's Vineyard. But then, an awful lot of your edits are good catches or other improvements to grammar or style. Every once in a while, I even learn a new term, like restrictive appositive. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I don't know how to tell you how grateful I am for this comment. The kinds of edits I make most often (as you noted) involve style and grammar, very rarely content. There are many WP editors who despise and resent the kind of work I do, because to them style and grammar don't matter. That kind of hostility is the main reason I chose several years ago to edit anonymously, after almost 15 years of working under my own account, because being attacked hurts however it happens. Sometimes I believe I'm the only person on earth who cares about the things I care about, to whom the English language matters. Thank you very, very much for letting me know I'm not alone. Not only that, but somebody actually appreciates what I do. Wow.—8.9.93.141 (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

You're not the only one; others do, too. The only thing I'd ask (you probably already do this) is to implement Wikipedia's style manual when issues of style and not grammar are concerned, even when the style choices at MOS might disagree with your (or my) preference. Plenty of times, there's more than one way to do it, and in those cases, we need to yield to WP:MOS. The case above was not one of those, as it was a requirement of grammar and not a style choice, so doesn't fall under this caveat, and anyway I suspect most of your fixes are grammar and not style.

In the style bucket, I was thinking of you when I made this revert at Otto von Sadovszky, because it *was* a style issue (I think) about how to deal with hyphens in attributive vs. predicative context, and although MOS:HYPHEN seems clear about this point, I remember wondering while composing my edit summary whether you would have agreed with me that it was a matter of style (hence governed by the style manual) or shades into grammar. I finally decided it's style because it's a matter of improved clarity rather than grammar; a perfectly grammatical sentence can be very unclear or ambiguous (I enjoy editing or monitoring Garden-path sentence and Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo for example) and punctuation is pretty much relegated to style and not grammar. So maybe this isn't even in your particular area of interest, I dunno. Btw, that revert of mine did make me hesitate, because my Spidey sense started tingling gently, wondering if I was about to trigger somebody; thankfully, nothing so far. But I *do* know what you are talking about.

Btw, as you have previously edited while registered but ran into the problems you described, I think there is a way to start editing again under a new registered account while avoiding the problems of WP:SOCKing. I can't remember what it's called, but if you're interested in exploring that, I'll try to find it. Mathglot (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I did think of one thing that might help reduce pushback or flaming by others wrt your grammar or style fixes, and that's to include a guideline or style link in the edit summary whenever possible. For example, in your 12 June edit at Henry Jaglom (diff) instead of simply mentioning tense in the edit summary (which makes it your interpretation of grammar or tense vs. theirs), try including Per WP:RELTIME instead, which shifts it away from you. That way, if someone gets their dander up about it, their complaint is with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and not with you, and if they have a problem with it, they can take it up at the MOS Talk page and not with you. Let MOS be your shield. Mathglot (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: You were right to remove the hyphen between "well" and "accepted" in the Sadovszky article. My correcting "is currently editing" to "edited" in the Jaglom article had nothing to do with style or even with grammar but with time. It says that Jaglom's editing was being done "for a Fall, 2013 Theatrical Release" (I should have corrected that comma and those rampant capitals!), so he cannot be "currently editing" that movie—for a 2013 release anyway. That deadline passed years ago.

You can see my editing history only from this current IP address. It's not static, so my ISP changes it occasionally. I don't keep up with what it is, so I don't know how many different IP addresses I've been through since I abandoned my WP account. (That account is still alive, by the way, so I wouldn't have to do anything but start using it again if I wanted to—but I can't imagine that I ever would.) If you could see all the thousands and thousands of edits I've made here, you'd know that for very many years I did exactly what you suggested: cited MOS chapter and verse (conveniently linked) in the edit summary for almost every edit I made. I still do that occasionally, but I've given it up for the most part because (a) it's too much work for something very few people will ever read, and even fewer will bother to check the MOS refs; and (b) I read somewhere (maybe in the MOS itself, but I don't remember) that the MOS is only a guideline and should never be cited to justify an edit. In any case, I discovered that the people who want to attack don't care about the MOS, so hiding behind it doesn't deflect any hostility toward it and away from me. So now I usually give a very terse summary, like "tense" or "puffery" or "surname", and anybody who cares can look up what I mean. Although I don't like being attacked, I don't much care whether other editors approve of what I do. As I said, you're the first who ever has, as far as I know. Which brings me to:

One of the main reasons I very much prefer to edit anonymously is that I'm a loner by nature and by choice. I have no desire to be part of the WP "community" or any other community, social network, society or cult. I don't subscribe to WP's Holy Grail of Consensus. I've never in my long life done anything by consensus, and I won't and can't start now just for the satisfaction I derive from editing this encyclopedia. If I get expelled for my uncooperative attitude (which I've been half expecting for as long as I've been here) then I'll find something else to entertain me.

So I like the fact that my identity here changes periodically as my ISP assigns me different IP addresses. When I'm forced to check my talk page, I don't have to revisit past trauma. Every time I'm given a new IP address (or I request a new one, which I could do but have never done) I get a fresh start, an entirely new Wikipedia identity, complete with the "Welcome!" for virgin editors, and that's the only way I want to be here now, as a visitor.—8.9.93.141 (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I understand, and won't interfere. Hope to interact with you sometime again in the future, even if I don't know it's you. If you're feeling expansive at the time from somewhere I don't recognize, send we a {{wink}} if you feel like, or don't if you don't. (Disclosure: my memory is crappy; even if you do, I may not make the connection.) In any case, I've enjoyed our interaction here; happy editing, and all the best to you! Mathglot (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I've enjoyed this too, very much. It's been a surprising and very welcome experience for me; I never expected it on WP. Thank you. It almost makes me want to reopen my account (I just checked, and it is still alive). But we'll connect again somehow, somewhere. Until then, I wish you all the best too. My name is Jim, by the way, and my memory is pretty unreliable too. Thank you again for this wonderful experience.—8.9.93.141 (talk) 05:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Sv

in answer to your question on Weddell Gyre: Sv in this context is Sverdrup. Marnanel (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

---