Jump to content

User talk:Phronima

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dwaipayanc (talk | contribs) at 12:54, 26 February 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Phronima, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA and your kind words there. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Along similar lines, thanks for supporting my RfA, I was deeply humbled by the support that I recieved and will do my best to ensure that your vote of confidence in me was not misplaced. -Loren 00:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide Hall

Just basically wanted to say how much I enjoyed reading your recently-added Adelaide Hall article. I'd heard of her before, but knew nothing about her at all and found your article interesting and informative. Angmering 15:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopedia topics

Changing where links on pages like Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopedia topics/1 point isn't terribly helpful. These pages link, not to inform (as with most Wikipedia pages), but to catalog specific article names that another source had, and which it would be good for Wikipedia to provide. Either creating a redirect for the page name to an existing Wikipedia article or creating a new article of that name is the most helpful thing to do. Once that happens, someone will clean up the list to remove those entries which have already been created.

Thanks for your input, and happy editing! -Harmil 09:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bagha Jatin

You wrote:

I can see why you [placed the templates, but if you'd checked the Talk page you'd have seen what was going on. I created a stub until I could work out from the old article (and on-line sources) who this person was and why he was notable. --Phronima 17:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't check the discussion page. I don't really see a problem in having the templates there until you expand the article. They may even attract the attention of another editor, who will help you. If you'd rather remove them immediately, go ahead, I won't be offended.--Carabinieri 18:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uqba ibn Nafi

Hi Phronima,

Nice article! I just checked this off of the Wikipedia:List of missing Africa topics page and I thought I'd let you know that I enjoyed it much more than the standard stubs seen there. Keep up the good work! --Dvyost 17:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Malay roy Choudhury

Hi, thank you very much for your comments. I have taken a second look and agree with your comments. I have edited it again and would be glad to receive your comments as a learning process. By the way, I do not know how to change the title although I knew the title was wrong. Do I just start a new article and redirect the old article to it? — PM Poon 04:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Phronima, for pointing out the grammar mistakes. You mentioned: "...your changes seem to have introduced as many errors as you've corrected." Personally, I think it is an unfair statement, as you are insinuating that I have not contributed anything positive to this article. Would you DO A REVERT then? If you don't, let's do a physical count later on, when others have finished with their edit. — PM Poon 17:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Phronima, I have done some investigations on your following comments: "For example, the second sentence of the summary now reads: 'His literary works has been reviewed by sixty critics, the details of which appeared in "HAOWA 49"'; the verb is singular when it should be plural, and the "which" in the second clause doesn' make grammatical sense. The next setence should be simple past rather than present perfect."

Can you vouch for the accuracy of your comments? — PM Poon 22:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... pretty quiet from your end. THE MORAL OF THE STORY IS NOT TO JUMP INTO CONCLUSIONS WHENEVER YOU SEE A WORD ENDING IN "S". NOT ALL WORDS ENDING IN "S" ARE PLURAL!!!
I am just wondering whether you might just be another pseudonym for an Oxford administrator who behaves exactly like you... making strong statements that are totally unfounded and later found indefensible. If you are indeed the guy who taught English to foreign students in a prestigious university (which is nothing more than teaching elementary-level English language to elementary (primary) school students, making you in essence an elementary school teacher... nothing great about that, rite?) think again. Your integrity may be at stake if you are branded as a "troll"! I certainly hope you are not!! — PM Poon 16:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phronima, are you surprised with my tone? Well, I was earlier surprised with yours too! Editors should learn how to be humble and not act as if they are "mightier than thou." I have dealt with a few editors so far, and it seems that only the two editors from Oxford thinks that they are of a superior breed. Hope it has nothing to do with the location, because today, the United States is the in-thing.

You earlier mentioned: "...your changes seem to have introduced as many errors as you've corrected." Would you like to substantiate that? Why don't you reply to my question: Would you like to DO A REVERT, since it makes no difference either way, and I don't want my work posted if you think it does not contribute positively to the article?

For your information, "works" can either be plural or singular. It is singular when it is viewed as a collective whole... unless American English is different from British English. I have done my homework, and I am very sure. — PM Poon 17:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Phronima, just to convince you that the use of the word, "works", in the singular is not merely confined to what you have itemised, and could mean more than that, I am appending a sampling of the 18,100 websites that Google finds, using the keywords, "his works has":

  • UNESCO Address of Celaleddin Bakir Celebi
    We witness that since seven centuries the impact of his works has been perpetuating. As displayed here the works of various nations substantiate well what ...
    http://www.mevlana.net/celebi/unesco_address.htm
  • CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Hugh of St. Victor
    A careful examination of his works has led to a truer appreciation of one whom Harnack (History of Dogma, tr. London, 1899, VI, 44) terms "the most ...
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07521c.htm

I believe it is not necessary to list more than the above, but if you need more convincing, please click here. — PM Poon 18:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied at User talk:PM Poon)

Hi Phronima, you are right there. Let me check, cos I have been taught in school that "works" as a collective whole is singular. — PM Poon 18:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Phronima, how about this:

  • Singapore Management University: Lien Fung's Colloquium
    His works has won several awards which include NBDCS Book Prize, and Golden Lion Award, first prize in short story category. Mr Pan's publication works ...
    http://www.smu.edu.sg/LFC/chairpersons.asp
  • Lev Manovich / Bio
    His works has been included in many key internatioonal exhbitions of new media article. In 2002 ICA in London presented his mini-retrospective under the title ...
    http://www.manovich.net/bio_00.htm


Hi Phronima, I had anticipated that you would say that the internet contains errors. While I do not dispute its possibility, you should look at the sources. Don't tell me that I have to teach you this!! Are you trying to say that you are more authoritative than the "Nobel Prize for Literature 1984 - Press Release" website?
It just goes to show your character — the characteristic "mightier than thou" attitude, exhibited by the other Oxford editor. Hopefully, the two of you are not representative of the entire Oxford population.
The only reason why I am harping on this is because Wikipedia has too many half-baked editors that get on the nerves of many Wikipedians who genuinely want to contribute. If I can, I will get rid of them. Just take a look at the other Oxford editor's talk page, and you would know what kind of pest he makes himself out to be. — PM Poon 19:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Phronima, do you call "baseless accusations" polite? I have asked you to substantiate your accusations, but you have not. I am putting you to task on these two statements (actually, there are more):

  • ... your changes seem to have introduced as many errors as you've corrected;
  • His literary works has been reviewed by sixty critics, the details of which appeared in "HAOWA 49"'; the verb is singular when it should be plural.

Have we resolved the issues? What is the conclusion? And what do you mean by going on and on, when the issues have yet to be resolved, and you seem so elusive and dishonest in your arguments. I can understand how you feel. It is always irritating to lose.

Swedish website? You seems to be always putting yourself in a corner. Didn't I show you where to get the information? Honestly, I too do not want to spend so much time on this, but I still need to resolve the issues. That's why I did not select my earlier examples very carefully. Now that you insist, will the following authorities be sufficient to convince you:

  • British Council, United Kingdom;
  • Encyclopedia Britannica, United Kingdom;
  • University of Glasgow, United Kingdom;
  • Word Power Co., United Kingdom;
  • News Filter Encyclopedia, United Kingdom;
  • University of Adelaide Law School, Australia.

If so, let me know, and I will present my case. In any case, I will let you have an idea of what to expect if you ask for it:

I wonder whether we need to argue anymore. There is no question who wins this debate if we have it in court. Any reasonable person would have thought that this debate is conclusive, and that there is no need for you to argue about English, being your mother tongue. Ahem! Seems like a foreigner can sometimes beat the natives at their own game!! Yet, I do know that your pride and ego will blind you to the substantial evidences that I have at hand. Care to be a gentleman? I doubt.

Actually, I was not cheesed of by you pointing out my mistakes. In fact, if you were right, I would have learned something new. I was extremely unhappy with this statement: ... your changes seem to have introduced as many errors as you've corrected...

Care to substantiate it? Now that you have lost one battle, do you dare to fight this one? I bet you will have your usual excuses. Next time, when you want to accuse anyone, be prepared to defend, otherwise, please just shut up!! I have never heard of any judge allowing a defendant to escape, merely because he is "getting irritated". All the judge wants is "material evidence". How you feel is totally irrelevant!! — PM Poon 23:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what you are talking about

What are you yapping about? — PM Poon 12:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Phronima, you wrote: "It doesn't matter how many examples of typing or grammatical mistakes you find, they don't change the facts about English grammar."

Okay, I *think* that this is what was meant: That I corrected a few typos in some of the articles that you had written when I was reading them earlier. Did I comment anything about these articles, or that it changed the facts about English grammar? You sound so neurotic. Are you sure you are okay?

To be honest, I did find your articles very well-written, although I would have preferred the following:

  • More use of commas;
  • More prepositions;
  • Shorter sentences: high fog index, as it is;
  • More key words to be hyperlinked.

Had it been some other people's work, I would have been tempted to add in a few commas and prepositions, and break up a few sentences. Yet, given our current tenuous relationship, I thought it best not to touch it, except for some typing errors which I thought were harmless. Is that wrong too?

I have read your edit of Malay Roy Choudhury. It looks like a major revamp, but to be honest, I felt that you did it just to prove your point. If Ernest Hemingway were to edit Mark Twain’s manuscripts, I guess he would have changed everything too. To be sure, every writer has a different style of writing, and no two writers write the same way. But for a Wikipedian editor to use the "copyedit" tag to justify his INSISTENCE that articles be written his way is a different kettle of fish altogether, constituting an abuse of his position.

We haven't yet come to a mutual consensus on whether "his works" can also be singular. You wrote: "Do I think that, as a native English speaker, I'm able to spot typing or grammatical errors in other people's work? Yes. Do I think that I'm in a position to correct the English on a Swedish website? Yes. If another editor spotted a mistake that I'd made and politely corrected it, would I go on and on about it, insisting that I was right? No."

My queries:

  • Are you going to admit that you were wrong in contending that "works" is always plural after no less than six authoritative sources, including Britannica Encyclopedia and your British Council, confirm that I am correct? Yes, or No?
  • Is making an unsubstantiated accusation, such as "your changes seem to have introduced as many errors as you've corrected", being polite?
  • Do you as a native English speaker still believe that you can [always] spot typing or grammatical errors in other people's work, when you can't spot them in yours? Well, maybe like Socrates, you could see the mote in other people's eyes, but not the log in yours, LOL. I have no doubt that you can spot other people's grammatical errors when you see them. Really! Reason: Well, if you could even spot grammatical errors when they are not there, won't it be more so when they are there? LOL.
  • You seem to harp on the fact that "native English-speaker = good written English" and "non-natives = bad". Sounds so racialistic! While I do not deny that your English and the other Oxford editor's English is excellent (although errors can still happen, from time to time for the obvious reason that none of you are God), do think again about your contention! Please take a look at some of your countrymen's works in Wikipedia and on other internet sites!!! LOL.

These are pointed questions. Can you answer them? The only reason why I am going on and on, is because even after so many exchanges, you have not answered any of them. You seem so slippery, LOL. — PM Poon 15:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Sorry not to have replied sooner, and I'm afraid that I'm just knocking off editing for the night, so I can't do anything at the moment. I've seen enough to know that PM Poon (alias Mr Tan, and others) is up to his old tricks. I'll try to do something about it when I next log in (tomorrow some time). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Garden Island

thanks for editing it reads better. Gnangarra 01:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

help

Can you have a look at the discussion about the drowner and make any suggestion thankyou | the drowner

Missing entries in the hotlist

Please check this discussion to find about "MA BA". Typically if you cannot find something, check Columbia's TOC. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 14:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cocksfoot Grass

Hi Phronima - thanks for the note; my changes were partly that numbers (above ten and/or with fractions) should be in figures, not spelled out, and that when as figures, the unit is also abbreviated (I've not seen in the Manual of Style that it should be spelled out in every instance, only for indefinite sums like "several centimetres" - there's probably several thousand wiki pages where it isn't) ("one and a half centimetres" looks awful compared to 1.5 cm!); also that 'orchard grass' is a minor colloquial name, not what you'll find in e.g. the Flora of the British Isles, and thus should not be given equal prominence to its standard 'official' name; finally, 'plant-stub' is placed above the interwiki links, not above them (a lot of editors actually put stub tags above categories too, but that doesn't look so good at the bottom of a page) - MPF 15:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phronima, I've taken the liberty of copying your comment on MPF's talk page to the Dactylis glomerata where other editors of the article may view the discussion. Please comment there. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

Hi, Phronima. I want to thank you very much for supporting my RfA, and for your kind words. I really hope that I'll live up to the expectations of those who voted for me. If ever you have a problem with any admin-action of mine, please don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again. AnnH (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anvari

You changed the original British English of the article to U.S. English; why? --Phronima 11:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was trying to expand the page, and, in spell checking, I must've changed the spelling. I haven't exactly been awake for the past few days (well, I have, and that's the problem), so please excuse my bad edit. What do you think of the further expansion of the article? By the way...why did you say he "was one of the greatest"? That is definately POV, and you disapproved of my version of adding "was considered by many to be". Any specific reason? -Mysekurity 12:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I gotcha. I intentionally added in the weasel words and templates in the hope that someone could come along and add a good quote, thus NPOV'ing it. I, like you, was directed to the article through Missing Topics, and though I don't know anything about him, I know POV when I see it. I agree that true NPOV is not possible, but some obvious statements should be removed in an attempt to at least give the appearance of NPOV. Thanks for contacting me, and if you have any futher questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Happy editing, Mysekurity 22:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Felt album reversions

Hi, sorry about removing some of your reversions to the Felt album articles I created - I didn't mean to remove your changing of album to album (music) or Britain to United Kingdom but I would prefer to keep the ?? and N/A in the album infobox for aesthetic reasons (if you view Wikipedia's album project page you'll see that this is ok). The reason the articles had a dash at the end of the tracklisting is that I intend to add the track times later today and I was just making things easier for myself. Sorry for any offence (have to say I was quite surprised you'd changed things round so soon after I'd written the article though!) I've not really got the hang of this talk thing yet so sorry for the signature thing not looking right! User:Cavie78 2 December 2005

Felt album revisions (again)

Hi mate - you've changed all the albums back so they link to 'albums (music)' rather than 'albums' but 'albums (music)' redirects to 'albums' anyway so it seems a bit odd (I've only just noticed this myself). Could we have the correct links back please? Cavie78 15:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles "Chuck" Stanley

I removed your speedy deletion tag from this article. It's about a former drummer from a notable band, and thus I believe he qualifies under WP:BIO. Feel free to nominate for deletion, however. howcheng {chat} 18:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Novel articles

I tagged the articles that you've been creating today with "wikify" and "copyedit", but I see that you've removed the tags. As you'll see if you look at other Wikipedia articles, or if you follow the links provided (especially Wikipedia:Guide to layout), that your articles don't conform to Wikipedia style at all (they look, in fact, more like pages from a publisher's catalogue). They need to be provided with proper summaries, with information provided in prose form, and the style adapted to Wikipedia/encyclopaedia standards of English. If and when I find time I'll try to help, but there are a lot of them. --Phronima 15:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Paxomen"

Hiya, I removed them once I corrected spelling and grammar, I assumed that was the problem. The book descriptions are written by myself based on the official ones but completely reworded. Surely the length of the descriptions is OK? I hoped these might offer Buffyverse fans brief overviews of the stories. I don't think overly long descriptions is what people would need wiki for is it? can't we just add text on discussion pages saying that work needs to be done to bring it in line with wiki's guidelines? Is it neccessary to put one of those tags on every one of those articles, why not just add text to discussion pages: like Talk:Angel novels...Thanks -- Paxomen 16:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Kerala Nadvathul Mujahideen

You had previously blocked the above article Kerala Nadvathul Mujahideen for copyright violation. The content has been rewritten by someone, could you please have the copyright violation message removed? Shijaz 16:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Longzhou

Sorry my mistake! Anyway I myself am baffled by it. There was a red link in the article Longzhou and Lungchow was missing. On closer examination, we BOTH dealt with the same topic around the same time! Thanks for fixing it. Siva1979Talk to me 10:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this strange 'mystery' has been solved! Siva1979Talk to me 10:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of interurbans

I'm not sure I agree with your move of List of interurbans to List of inter-urban railway systems. The term interurban is the one primarily associated with these systems in North America. Rarely did exact analogies of the interurban style exist outside of North America; the interurban is a type in the middle between the tram or streetcar and a full-fledged railway system with its own rights of way. Most interurbans operated on the street in towns and cities and on dedicated tracks outside of them, which outside of the US was a rare combination.

I'm also concerned that your rename effectively is a change in scope of the list, and furthermore from a somewhat well defined scope (that of interurban) to a nebulously defined one if at all (whatever "inter-urban railway system" means). I don't think "inter-urban railway system" is a commonly used term or one that has any real defined meaning.

I am therefore going to move the list back to List of interurbans, but I'm open to argument against it, of course! —Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(with reference to your message back on my talk page) I see your point, definitely. However, Wikipedia naming conventions tend towards simplicity and common use, rather than adding extra explanatory words to article names. If it were to be longer, I'd rather 'List of interurban railways' since the form is more common. I suspect that it's a UK vs US language difference; American usage tends to favor mashing words together in an almost German style to form a new one, rather than keeping with hyphenating once the term becomes accepted. Of course, then one gets into the 'railway' versus 'railroad' naming debate (US usage favoring 'railroad' but with a sizeable minority of 'railway', Canadian and British usage overwhelmingly favoring 'railway' but with the odd one or two 'railroad' in their history).
I will certainly make sure the initial paragraph makes it obvious what it's about. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bagha Jatin

Hi Phronima ! Regarding the ongoing battle in the article Bagha Jatin,thanks for your sincere try to make the article free of grammatical mistakes and NPoV.However, you almost changed the whole article.I understand the frustration of reverting so many errors.I have again put the article in the near-original form , with as many corrections as I can.Still, there are some NPoV languages.

However,the person who made the original article is an authority of the subject . He has many publications and books relating to Bagha Jatin and other subjects [1],[2],[3] in French,Bengali and English.Being a bit older than the usual Wikipedians and relatively new user of Wikipedia, he was to some extent unaware of the ways Wikipedia works.In fact,he had cited many sources in the article.

So please try to keep the near-original form of the article with pointing out and editing as many NPoV as possible.Thank you.--Dwaipayanc 12:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Phronima&oldid=41308799"