User talk:Reallanguagehat

Welcome!

Hello, Reallanguagehat, 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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Peripitus 13:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English

Really, I'm sorry and ashamed about writing "casted" instead of "cast". I was too inaccurate and it's inappropriate for Wikipedia. However I think your whole accusation has too little basis -- I see no mistakes in those few minor edits I made to Putin article. (My major contributions are to Lukianenko and Gromov pages.) Could you give other examples, please?

And, yes, I like most of your recent edits to Putin article. (Although a part of what you simply erased could be footnoted.) I think, you did a good job.

ellol 18:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your mistake might have come from I'm not the only Russian editing that article, and mistakes of Russians in English are mostly typical. ellol 18:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All edits I made to Putin article are signed -- ellol.

First of all, my apologies again. I don't like to dwell on errors - it inevitably looks like finger pointing. However, since you asked for other examples, I went back over the past year and looked for contributions by you. These are the errors I noticed, and unfortunately they involve pretty much every major contribution you made during that period.

From 13 June 2006: "accusations of Putin's chief rivals of being soft on terrorism appeared on media, the sharpest point of PR compaign was probably the accusation...": to make this grammatical in English you'd have to have written something like "accusations by Putin's chief rivals appeared in the media accused him of being soft on terrorism; their most bitter [or "controversial", if you prefer] claim was that..."

The 28 January 2006 addition is also awkward, though with careful reading the idea is comprehensible.

From 19 July 2005: "Nearly that time he was appointed Commander-in-Chief of Russian Armed Forces. Putin's law-and-order image and his conduction of operation against Chechen extremists(see below) combined soon to make him popular and overtake all his rivals." "Nearly that time" is comprehensible, I think - i.e. "at almost the same time". "Russian Armed Forces" requires a definite article. While etymologically related to "conduct", "conduction" is a physics term [[1]]. In your construction, "operation" requires either a definite article or should be made plural. "Combined soon to make him popular" is awkward - "soon combined" would be clearer.

From 15 July 2005: "which Putin faced after the invasion of Chechen extremists into Dagestan". The word "invasion" already includes the idea "into" so to make this sentence grammatical you'd need to say something like "which Putin faced after the invasion of Daghestan by Chechen extremists".

From the same date: "there were no noticeable civil disorders caused by Kursk tragedy. Until the submarine was lifted..." "'Kursk' tragedy" requires a definite article. Sunken ships are raised, not lifted. "took into account various versions" can be understood by an English speaker but 'versions' doesn't have the same specificity in English that 'versii' does in Russian and would be better substituted here with the word "theories".

From 16 April 2005: "Popular weekly TV-show Kukly showed the most known of Russian politicians as puppets, a puppet-president having been the head of them." "The popular weekly TV show [no hyphen] Kukly portrayed [otherwise you've used the word "show" twice in the space of three words] the best known [no 'of'] Russian politicians as puppets, headed by a puppet president" ("having been the head of them" is comprehensible but very awkward").

Your 1 November 2005 contribution to the Progressors article also contains several grammatical errors and awkward constructions. The Alexander Gromov article needs a lot of work on grammar, word usage etc, to raise it to standards. While I've never read any Gromov, I'd be happy to help you with the linguistic side of this. --Reallanguagehat 06:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thorough critique. It's exactly what I asked for... I didn't expect such results.

Thanks for offering help! I would really like to work with you on Gromov article, to raise it to standarts. I'm ready to do my part of the work. A place for discussion could be Gromov talk page.

Yet there's also a need of adding more stuff... the article will be expanded at least twofold, as I estimate.

As for "Year of the Lemming" section, I have an idea to totally rewrite it (omitting plot details and laying emphasis on Services, etc.) -- so it just isn't prepared for linguistic check.

In few days I'll pass the last exam and will translate the article as it is into Russian (primarily because when I informed Aleksandr Nikolaevich and fans about this article 2 months ago (at their forum), Gromov expressed his interest in reading the Russian translation). Fans aren't eager to edit the english article, however...

ellol 22:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]