User talk:ObfuscatePenguin

Welcome!

Hello, ObfuscatePenguin, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Hey, thanks. German isn't my first language, so if I can translate with only a few mistakes, I consider that acceptable.--Danaman5 18:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I've replied more on my talk page. Just wanted to drop you a note to let you know I replied. Thanks again! ^Ariel♥Gold 06:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the discussion is now opened for adage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adage and ,even if i am new ,we are equals wikicitizens. The rules explained previously by you , apply to yourself also . I am guessing you are not a french or spanish speaker; so perhaps you cannot understand the feeling when someone is willing for the "extinction" of one of your beloved words. please bring good arguements in the discussion page for adage (english) ; if possible not the "clicking two time is too much". Even if the (fr) Adage page is in the "Homonymie" catégory , and this page needs to be done by a good writer (not me) , it is more important to preserve the language and the words then misleading and hide this word for the world (no reference is found in (fr) proverbe page for Adage) .

damaging a language is quick and i am just working to preserve it the best i can ,here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adage

before clicking undo please come to the talk page . thank you for your comprehension. --Otij 08:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at your talk page. ObfuscatePenguin 09:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello ,
first adage(fr) is not an homonymie/disambiguation of adage(eng)
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catégorie:Homonymie
they share the same sens in both language***.
Adage(fr) is also a term taken afterward in danse and lawers profesion.
so it is good to have it in the homonymie/disambiguation category.

the wiktionary explanation is short but true
that adage(fr) =Proverbe, sentence populaire.
( ~maxim or proverb)

i am no writer , and it is complicated for me to
sort out everything:
***the proverbe is inspirated by dictons , locutions populaires and is then declinated into adage ,
aphorisme , maxime , sentence .

if Adage(eng) links to Proverb(eng)
then proverb(eng) do not link to Adage(eng).
This is where my conclusions*** are different from the authors
of the two previous(eng) definitions;without going to the
opposite direction.

The best way should be to leave it as it is
adage(eng) go to adage(fr)
the person will then click
where apropriated.
synonymous :proverbe
definition :wiktionary
or homonymie --Otij 16:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have replied at your talk page. ObfuscatePenguin 18:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello,
thank you for the change
and pointing me out to Homonymie ;
perhaps you didn't read well what i writen here previously.Anyway it doesn't mater.

i will then link the spanish page to
Adage_(expression)

good input:
"Language interwiki
A link to a page in another language's Wikipedia that covers the same concept. Remember, Wikipedia is an
encyclopaedia, not a dictionary; its purpose is to explain concepts, not to define words. This is why many of the
interwikis are not literal translations: because the purpose is to link to a translation of the idea, not a
translation of the article title."
do you think adage(fr) is a word or a concept nor both.
if i follow your idea both adage(fr-eng) should have been put in wiktionary...

--Otij 04:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly still have a lot to learn, but I'm glad you have at least seen the light on this issue. ObfuscatePenguin 07:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

did there was a pride lose on the process?
at least you helped me protect my precious language (thank you).
ah... protocols they make things go slowish... --Otij 14:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marc, I saw you proofreading my translation on the U4 (Berlin U-Bahn) page. Thanks very much for that. Now I translated parts of U7 (Berlin U-Bahn) from .de and I'm searching for someone who is able to correct my grammar and word choice mistakes. This is no request to do that, I only thought you would like to know as you are in the Category:Proofreaders de-en and maybe have fun in doing such things. Really no problem if you don't want to. I also added this concern here. Cheers --Oxymoron⁸³ 21:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to thank me for the U4 proofreading: I (and Wikipedia as a whole) should thank you for improving the article with some valuable content.

I decided to take you up on your offer with U7 and, having now completed that, I can say that your translation was fine—the changes I made are better described as copy edits for English prose rather than translation corrections—so, if you ever want me to check over another translation, let me know. ObfuscatePenguin 06:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it is a pleasure to work with you. I hope the efforts you spent on copy editing weren't higher than those a fresh translation would have needed ;) --Oxymoron⁸³ 10:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the The League of Copyeditors .

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop replacing outside of with outside. There's nothing wrong with it. It's standard in American English, and "established in British English, and used across a range of prose styles for the general reader ... [it] is idiomatic for the writer, and probably helps the rhythm of the statement" (Pam Peters, "The Cambridge Guide to English Usage," p. 401). Don't impose your personal preferences on others. Thank you. Jack^(Lumber) 21:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of "personal preference", so much as what I have been taught to be correct, and the texts that I have read—both American and British— which have variously described the addition of of to prepositions such as outside, off, etc. as non-standard, colloquial, redundant, or simply wrong. I am, therefore, grateful for your reference, which I can use to update my understanding of modern usage. However, I would assert that: simple outside probably still has a greater acceptance in all dialects of English than the "idiomatic" construction does, especially in more formal, published works, such as encyclopaedias; and, as such, is the more appropriate choice for Wikipedia. That said, if, in future, I make the change elsewhere, I will instead describe it as a copy edit. ObfuscatePenguin (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My original post was actually a little out of line. I sounded like the archetypal pain-in-the-ass holier-than-thou Mr. Know-it-all. I apologize.

Anyway, sometimes outside of sounds a little bit better; sometimes, plain outside is just fine. The following examples are from the British National Corpus [1]:

based on discoveries that go beyond, or arise outside of, ordinary experience. Here, "outside of" helps the rhythm of the statement.

the 26-mm lamps have limitations, outside of the problems of colour rendering. Plain "outside" wouldn't make sense here.

economic growth outside of London. This one really comes down to personal preference.

Off of is a little different. In British English, it's still beyond the pale, usually associated with nonstandard speech. On my side of the pond, off of is pretty common in speech and can be found in ordinary writing, though not in the most formal styles. The rule of thumb I follow is: If the article is about an American [British, Canadian, etc.] topic, let the Americans [British, Canadians, etc.] take care of it. (Indeed, you will find that many articles written mainly by people from India, Hong Kong, etc. have a distinct flavor, particularly with respect to word choice and prosody rather than grammar.) If the topic is region-free, then let's try to find alternatives shared by as many speakers as possible. For example: It is different from what it used to be. (region-free). Not: It is different to what it used to be (British sounding), nor It is different than it used to be. (American sounding). (Four centuries ago, however, these three construction were all possible in England.) Jack^(Lumber) 18:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. José de Guimarães - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]