User talk:95.42.25.28

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions 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! Austronesier (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

1. If you agree that the Arabian peninsula origins theory is only notable *historically* as opposed to *currently*, then surely you will also agree that its status as solely historical can - and, in fact, should - be indicated in the lede? – Absolutely! :)

2. I've answered to your comment in Talk:Basque verbs#Antipassive.

3. As for the vowel in my IPA, it's an allusion to my native dialect. We do have a very fronted vowel where Hochdeutsch has [ɐ]. –Austronesier (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

3. OK, fair enough.

2. Answered about Basque there.

1. Since you sound so cheery and unaware, I'll point out that you could've bothered to make that rewording yourself, rather than just reverting my original edit. It was quite obvious that the article's use of the sentence with 'scholars hypothesise' in the present tense, as if the view were espoused currently, meant directly misleading the readers. My original removal of the 'Arabian' part had the benefit of eliminating that misleading effect, the objective result of your revert was to restore it and it probably would have stayed misleading in that respect, because, not being a regular Wikipedian, I don't - and can't be expected to - regularly check whether my edits have been reverted or not. A simple revert like this would have been appropriate if my edit had had no merit whatsoever (see also the very commonsense admonitions to the same effect in WP:RV ('If you see a good-faith edit which you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it.') and WP:ROWN). This all too common editing style seems to be based on MMPORG fights - the apparent presupposition is that every edit (as well as the rationale behind it) is the user's 'own baby' and it's 'their job' to defend it, nobody else is expected to see any merit in it and as long as they have the slightest objection to any part of it, it's OK for them to use the pretext to eliminate it. That is not a constructive attitude to collaborative work. At least I appreciate that you weren't consistent by reverting my subsequent translation from the Russian wiki because of the remaining unfixed parameters.--95.42.25.28 (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, the summary of WP:RV is "revert an edit made in good faith only with an explanation and after careful consideration". Try not to read any kind of attitude into content-related disagreement; "discuss edits, not editors". At least I appreciate that you weren't consistent by reverting my subsequent translation from the Russian wiki – why should I, the translation is good, no? –Austronesier (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The summary doesn't cancel the content, but, on the contrary, it does 'summarise' it appropriately, because the 'careful consideration' in question does entail, in particular, 'making a good-faith effort to reword' rather than reverting. And I did 'discuss the edit' - which, however, is inseparable from discussing its objective consequences, and that, in turn, is inseparable from discussing what priorities it naturally fits in with and what it doesn't fit in with, as well as what general phenomena it is a specific representative of. As for the actual 'content disagreement' (which was only about whether mention of a theory of solely historical significance belongs in the lede), I didn't even bother to address it, let alone discuss what 'attitude' it entailed, I only stated what a more constructive reaction on your part could have looked like *given* your disagreeing opinion (which, needless to say, was wrong, too, but I yielded immediately, since my priority was to make sure the article wasn't factually misleading).--95.42.25.28 (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

---