User talk:Nechemia Iron

Why are you injecting ambiguity into sentences and generally write like a russian?
On the nuclear winter article, I have had the displeasure to read your edits, such as the following.

More recent studies of ozone layer accommodate both natural and anthropogenic generation of stratospheric NOx

This edit of yours both (1) removed an accurate sentence that conveyed quality information, and (2) in its place you have put this, your so called "improved" sentence that is totally devoid of a basic understanding of the definite article.

Aside from this sentence of yours conveying nothing but vagueness, in the English language your intended sentence should also read as follows: More recent studies of the ozone layer...

So I can't help but wonder, are you perhaps writing english as a second language?

As it seems that you do not understand the use of the definite article? Please read this, if you haven't a clue what that is: http://library.bcu.ac.uk/learner/Grammar%20Guides/3.11%20Articles.htm

In general, I would like to ask you to stop your rampage of editing wikipedia as your edits are detracting from the quality of the information presented, not improving it. Despite your apparent belief to the contrary.

To level with you, I don't regard myself as the best wordsmith either, but I think I make up for that by researching and adding quality references, so perhaps you could follow a similar mindset for a time? Before taking it upon yourself to re-write articles to effectively make them sound like something written by a team of secondary school children.

Boundarylayer (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. Next time I will try not to leave out the word "the". Nechemia Iron (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you really Russian? Or are you being facetious? It would be a spookily good guess on my behalf if you really are Russian? Are you? Look, it isn't really about the dropping of the definite article as much as it is about the removal of technical information and your re-writing of paragraphs that simply make them even more vague. I'm not that much of a grammar nazi to get annoyed about a missing the. You feel me? It's about your taking of a paragraph that conveyed information as plainly as I could write it and then stripping it entirely of the coherent point it once expressed. That is not an "improvement" in any universe I live in.
 * In any case,
 * Давайте выпьем за то, чтобы мы испытали столько горя, сколько капель вина останется в наших бокалах!
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Nechemia Iron (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)≠

Nevada Test Site
What exactly did you mean by "This does not look like a legitimate citation"? If you meant that the website prompted you for a username and password, then yes, that indeed is a barrier to using the article as a source. Fortunately, there is an archived copy of the article:. If you think that source is reliable, you can add it back to the citation with the archiveurl parameter. Altamel (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look reliable to me, nor especially relevant. Nechemia Iron (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It was published by a government agency. I'm curious, what makes you think the Department of Energy is unreliable? Altamel (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)