|This is Mathglot's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Mathglot.|
My editing tips.
Neg adj. change
In the article, gender, you made several improvements, but one of your changes was to change "easy to misunderstand" to "hard to understand" -- a change that, I think, was not an improvement. You edit summary for this change was, "Negative adj. is simper than negative adjectival prefix." While this is true, it would apply only in cases where the change was to something with the same meaning, such as removing a double negation ("Not untrue statement" --> "true statement"). In this case, however, "easy to misunderstand" and "hard to understand" do not have the same meaning. Your thoughts? Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 23:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. You are presumably referring to Mathglot (talk) 06:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC) . For me, the two phrases have the same meaning, but the version lacking a negative prefix is simpler (literally simpler: 'understand' instead of 'misunderstand') and clearer. If they do not have the same meaning for you, can you please define each phrase for me, so I can try and see it from your PoV?
- I'll add a thought. If I say "quantum physics is hard to understand", that's probably an objective truth for non-physicists like myself. But to misunderstand something refers to the psychology of interpretation. The dicdef is: "to misunderstand is to understand incorrectly, while thinking to have understood correctly". Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello there, and welcome to our Wikipedia. Since you accuse /warn me of being revisionist, please point me to a well-documented case, where the Nazis used eiher Tabun, Soman, or Sarin, in a combat situation. Nerve agents were used in the first world war, but they weren't used in Europe, in the Second World War. Note: Use, not produce; filling it in caniszers/bombs to deploy it isn't using it. --Eptalon (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I've seen your message on my talk page but of course can't respond there since I'm blocked. Messages reach me though and I can read them but I'm silenced.
As pertains your proposal regarding de:Luftangriff auf Magdeburg am 16. Januar 1945, I have indeed started working on it and, following your kind offer, I may somehow post the final result somewhere on your talk page within days. It is currently a 54,000 KO article with something in the range of 60 verified references. I still have to finalize the work but 50% of the work is already done.
Contrary to the pretence used to block me that I lied about machine translations, I didn't lie of course and never used Google translate but DeepL Translator. But as the very common French saying goes : "he who wants to kill his dog accuses it of having rabies". (Read: any pretence will do the trick)
Thanks for your support, just, I won't sign the usual way which would betray the way I reached you.
Don't put yourself on harms way though.
- @LouisAlain:, rather than place it on my Talk page, please just email it to me or use a subpage here or at de-wiki or fr-wiki; I will pass you a link soon. A propos, j’ai habité Paris (19eme) pendant 5 ans, et je le connais assez bien. À bientôt, Mathglot (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- You can copy your information to User talk:Mathglot/Magdeburg air raid, or send to my email if you want. By the way: just because you are blocked, does *not* mean you cannot respond at your own Talk page; blocking access to the encyclopedia, and blocking access to your own Talk page are two different privileges that have to be carried out individually. Have you tried to respond there? It’s possible you still have access to your own Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)