User talk:Drphilharmonic

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Season's Greetings Drphilharmonic, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

• some General guidance.
• Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
• Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
• Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
• Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
• Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
• Use the Show preview button
• Provide an Edit summary
• Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
• Take a look at Consensus of standards
• Create a User page

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, -- Alf ^melmac 16:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Neuroscience edits

I just wanted to say your neuroscience article related copyedits today have been excellent. Keep up the great work: we need a good editor on here! Semiconscious • talk 19:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me second that. Thanks for all the hard work, and we hope you stick around. --Arcadian 21:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Semantics

As a medical scientist, specializing in linguistics, among other things, I never dispute whether a word is actually a "word," for, if letters are assembled into a group of letters whose ascribed definition is agreed upon by the speaker and listener - by which, then, a meaning is conveyed - who is to argue the validity of the "word"? It is the USE of the word and underlying logic that are under my scrutiny; and, in our example from neopallium, even by your own estimation, the restructuring of the phrase clarified the statement.

This statement in particular--and your writing in general--belies a great deal of insight regarding communication, semantics, and language use. Too often I find arguments between people stem from different personal definitions of words. When I encounter this sort of misunderstanding I often defer to the dictionary to lay the groundwork for common meaning. Should that fail I try to explicitly state which internal definitions I'm using (you may find this most recent episode of mine interesting). I honestly believe this is why certain people quickly become such good friends with me in real life, and why other can't stand me: I'm a pain in the ass during arguments. Luckily it's helped attenuate potentially terrible arguments and has helped me keep many friendships from destabilizing due to semantic misunderstanding. Hell, it's probably the only reason the woman to whom I'm engaged is still with me.

Basically all of these words can be summed up thusly: I appreciate your thoughtfulness, and I'm sure you and I would get along in real life rather well. :) Semiconscious • talk 18:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

New York (orchestra) - proposed deletion

I have nominated the article New York (orchestra) for deletion according to the Wikipedia proposed deletion policy. I am giving you notice just in case there is a mistake in this process, and since the article will be deleted in five days if not contested. My primary concern was a lack of clarity in the article's general focus, and many of the names initially listed seemed not to have any relevance with this focus. If you contest this, I will be happy to nominate it for articles for deletion where its merits can be discussed, or else help to improve the quality of the article. Thank you! --Ray thejake 22:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Philadelphia (orchestra)

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Philadelphia (orchestra), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Philadelphia (orchestra). You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Montco 23:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC).

Quotation marks and punctuation.

I see you are busy copy editing, which is great. Just a wee note to say that on WP, we don't put the sentence punctuation inside the quotes unless the punctuation was part of the quotation. This might not be the style you are used to, but is one of those conventions that is long-standing on WP. See WP:MOS#Quotation_marks. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 20:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyeditor's Barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thank you for all your copyediting on science-related articles, so many of which obviously need this kind of attention. Keep up the good work! --Ed (Edgar181) 15:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

yeah, nice work. MisterSheik 17:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edit of Information theoretical death

Hey, uh, just so you know, its the editor's responsibility when they move a page to change all the links to the new page, as wkipdia does not allow chain edits. For example, Cryonics link is retundant, so you may want to check that out PwnerELITE (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Logic, grammar, ...

You might take a look at rust, molybdenum disulfide, and carbonylation. They are not very long but your virtual red pencil would be appreciated.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that I can take it from here. Apparently I and others are abusing adverbs: "additionally," "prepared industrially," "generally," and so forth. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Logic, grammar, syntax

Do you dislike adverbs? I've seen several of your edits today which change adverbs like "generally" or "consequently" to the corresponding adverbial phrases ("in general" or "as a consequence"). The Manual of Style does not deprecate adverbs, and these edits seem to increase the number of words in articles without actually adding content or clarifying the meaning. Am I missing something? Is a distaste for adverbs perhaps a regionalism? (I'll watch this page, so you can reply here.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Logic, It Is

Any editing that is performed on my part is not meant in any way to be an insult to any person, place, or thing. My work is predicated on my ethic that speakers and writers have an obligation to craft their words in such a way as to represent as closely as possible the meaning of their ideas, if they expect their listeners and readers to receive an accurate interpretation of their ideas.

Modifications of various terms labeled "adverbs" are made if the specific terms are not used in an adverbial sense, that is, if they are, in fact, not adverbs at all, but conjunctive-adverbs. In the phrase "these enzymes obviously catalyze..." it is hardly the case that the writer is using "obviously" as an adverb, rendering "these enzymes catalyze in an obvious manner." Or is it? Ambiguity, due to an illogical assemblage of words, muddies the meaning of a fine idea. It is probable that the writer means "it is obvious [to whom?] that these enzymes catalyze..." So it is a grave logical error when one employs the wanton use of terms that cloud the meaning of ideas through imprecise writing; and a slight restructure for the sake of clarity and, therefore, logic is not an act of purposeful verbosity. Furthermore, if it is, indeed, the case that the writer means "it is obvious that these enzymes catalyze..." then the writing MUST be restructured in order to eliminate the bias inherent in the statement, for it just might not be obvious to others, or even anyone else, except the writer. So the phrase "enzymes obviously catalyze..." is not only nonsensical and ambiguous but also demonstrative of subjectivity of content, and not worthy of an encyclopedia, whose purpose is to present unbiased, objective information. A few other words that represent paragoge unbridled and that insult the sensibilities of those that (yes "that" and not "who," in order to make the distinction from "those 'that' do not") yearn for logical, clear, substantive writing include "unfortunately," "apparently," "luckily," "firstly," "secondly," "lastly."

Let's try this with a specific example. You recently changed this sentence:

Relatively few patients have significant side effects other than fatigue and a high fever caused by the cancer cells dying, although complications like infection and acute kidney failure have been seen.

to this:

Although relatively-few patients have significant side-effects other than fatigue and a high fever caused by the cancer cells dying, complications like infection and acute kidney failure have been seen.

I count two changes:

1. a change in logical emphasis, so that the rare complications take precedence over the normal side effects, and
2. the introduction of a hyphen.

The first edit changes the sense of the sentence in a way that seems inappropriate for the content. Why should the rare event trump the normal experience?

The second is a punctuation error. As the Wikipedia article says, "Hyphens should not normally be used in adverb–adjective modifiers such as wholly owned subsidiary and quickly moving vehicle (because the adverbs clearly modify the adjectives; "quickly" does not apply to "vehicle" as "quickly vehicle" would be meaningless)." The emphasis here is mine, but I suspect in the instant example that we can agree that "relatively patients" is meaningless.

Here's another example from the same article:

Hairy cell leukemia is commonly diagnosed after a routine blood count shows unexpectedly low numbers for one or more kinds of blood cells, or after unexplained bruises or unexplained infections, such as repeated bouts of pneumonia in an otherwise apparently healthy patient.

was changed to:

Hairy cell leukemia is commonly diagnosed after a routine blood count shows unexpectedly-low numbers for one or more kinds of blood cells, or after unexplained bruises or unexplained infections, such as repeated bouts of pneumonia in an otherwise-healthy patient.

You introduced two unnecessary hyphens, but the change in meaning is much more important to me. The original sentence can be (correctly) understood as "You look healthy on the surface, but you have an undiagnosed leukemia." Your sentence leaves the impression that a person with an undiagnosed, incurable leukemia and a properly diagnosed lower respiratory infection is essentially healthy, except for that pesky pneumonia.

I think these edits are pretty typical of your work today. I admire your grasp of the formal rules for that and which, but by overusing hyphens and rephrasing to your own personal style without understanding the content, I feel like you're ultimately introducing almost as many problems as you're solving. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Adherence to Logic

Like a gift from the stars, your reply delivers to us the very reason for my being here, for it is not necessary for me to excavate samples of faulty logic and deficiency of language skills; they come to me. The content of your writing represents the multitude of writing conducted by those with neither an understanding of the very discipline on which they write nor a grasp of their mode of communication, language, not to mention a complete absence of the logic that binds the two elements. Your concluding statement, no less, affirms my assertions by standing as the exemplar of illogicality, with its improper use of language ("I feel like") and improper punctuation ("but by overusing hyphens..." ["by overusing hyphens..." is a parenthetical phrase, which, because terminated by a comma, should be preceded by a comma]). After all, your very screen-name elucidates the prowess of your scholarship.

Your response is rude and irrelevant. Would you please rephrase it? I want you to address my specific concerns politely. My specific concerns are your incorrect overuse of hyphens and your incorrect changes to content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Drphilharmonic, I have to agree with WhatamIdoing, that your response was rude. You obviously have some skills which are needed on Wikipedia, but if you don't play well with others, this isn't the place to be. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and WhatamIdoing has very politely asked questions about your editing. You have not responded to the questions with answers, but with grammatical criticism and insults. This doesn't engender a cooperative spirit with your fellow editors. Please consider responding to the questions which were posed, rather than simply dismissing the questioner with sarcasm. SlackerMom (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

double redirects

Hello there. Just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that you introduced a number of double redirects in your recent moves (e.g., Kininogen, low-molecular-weight and HMWK). I believe the onus is on the page mover to resolve those double-redirects. Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I posed the question about grammatical fixes to official gene names over here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology#fixing_grammatical_errors_in_gene_names.3F. I can see an argument both ways, so I thought I'd pose it to the wider community. AndrewGNF (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Double-redirects

I appreciate your alerting me to the creation of double-redirects resulting from my page-moves, AndrewGNF. After performing a move, and while on the newly-created page, I click on "What links here" in order to fix the links to the new page, thereby eliminating redirect pages altogether. Is this an acceptable procedure? Thank you.

You actually need to check the "What links here" on the old page. For example, HMWK redirects to High-molecular weight kininogen, and you moved High-molecular weight kininogen to High-molecular-weight kininogen. That means you need to check "What links here" for High-molecular weight kininogen (using Special:Whatlinkshere/High-molecular_weight_kininogen). You then can click on the link to "Show redirects only", and you will find five pages: HMWK, High molecular weight kininogen, Williams-Fitzgerald-Flaujeac factor, Fitzgerald factor, Kininogen, high-molecular-weight. All of these pages should be updated to point directly to the new page High-molecular-weight kininogen. Whew, that's confusing even to write.

Said a different way, suppose pages 1A, 1B, and 1C all redirect to page 2. If you move page 2 to page 3 (which sets up a redirect from 2 to 3), then 1A, 1B, and 1C all need to have their redirects updated to go to 3. It's probably also worth checking out WP:2R.

Bottom line, I've found moving pages (particularly older pages which likely have redirects already pointing to it) can be quite a burdensome exercise. (Apparently there is a bot that attempts to resolve double-redirect, e.g., [1], but apparently it's not quite exhaustive...) Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, AndrewGNF; your thorough explanation is much-appreciated. I do check "What links here" on the former page first, correct the links, then verify on the newly-created page that the links function properly. In effort to keep my question brief, I neglected to state the intermediate step, for which I apologize to you.

Side effects

"Side effects" should not be hyphenated.[2][3][4][5] Please stop introducing this error. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Side-effects, It Is

Alternative spellings in modern dictionaries - which are not the bible on language, but the reporter of language usage - include the hyphenated version. The reason derives from language history and linguistics: When a compound word becomes a one-word idea, English-speakers (from Anglo-Saxon roots) de-emphasize the latter syllable, shifting accent onto the first syllable. So a man that delivers mail was labeled a mail man, with equal emphasis on both words, until the use and reuse of the two words together developed in the mind as one idea, rendering mailman. The same happened with houseboat, website, among many others. The coalescing of the two words, many times in written English, happens in stages, first bridging the two words with a hyphen in order to signify in written form the one-word idea, then removing the hyphen altogether as in week-end (now weekend), break-up (now breakup), print-out (now printout), among many others.

Furthermore, it recognized that side, in the phrase side door, is pronounced side door, with equal emphasis on both words, signifying that the phrase is, in the mind, two distinct ideas: door on the side [of the house]. However, side in side door does not have the same function as it does in side-effect: Pronunciation of the two words together as side-effect proves their coming together as one idea, and establishes from both logical perspective and linguistic history its correct spelling: side-effect.

I understand (and can source) your compound-word rationale. However, I do not believe that it is relevant in this case.

The English Language Institute says (open the first link and search for the word "effect") that "side effect" is not properly hyphenated unless it's used as a compound adjective (e.g., "side-effect profile"). If you want to use your preferred version in section heads, then please provide a reliable source to support it. As an alternative, we could go to WP:MOS and ask for a third opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your first dictionary reference - www.dictionary.com - cites the noun form side-effect in its first entry. So, contrary to your [erroneous] assertion, the one-word idea expressed in written form as side-effect is, in fact, recognized and used; you refuted your own argument.

[Nonetheless, it should be kept in mind by users of any language that neither the role nor the purpose of a dictionary is to dictate correctness of language. Dictionary-definitions themselves of the word dictionary contain phrases such as listing of words and their meanings, reference of words, terms, and expressions, and information on words and their etymologies; nowhere to be found are the terms the source of correctness of language usage, the language authority, the last word on the use of the word, and the like.]

Hyphens

I understand your rationale for hyphenating phrases like "naturally occurring cadmium." However, I disagree with it, and I have been unable to find a single style manual or grammar guide that agrees with you.

I have posed the question at WP:MoS, and I invite you to join the conversation there. If you can convince the MoS folks that your approach is correct, then I'll certainly abide by their decision. In return, I hope that if they agree with my interpretation of these rules, that you will abide by their decision as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Leaving comments in articles

Thanks for your hard work on improving the grammar, spelling and logic flow of so many articles. Great job! However, please do not leave comments in articles when you have made corrections, like you did on hepatic encephalopathy. Comments in articles are generally reserved for ongoing concerns, not changes that have been applied. Apart from appearing somewhat patronising, they also bulk up pages and would therefore indirectly increase server load. JFW | T@lk 23:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Acqua_vergine-source.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Acqua_vergine-source.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly ^hi! 06:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to International System of Units

I do not believe your edit to International System of Units was correct. I noticed the following outright errors in substance or style:

• You changed "were" to "is" even though the sentence described the base units as they existed before a recent addition.
• You changed a quotation mark from American style to logical quotation, which is what WP:MOS calls for.
• You changed the spellings "meter" and "liter" to "metre" and "litre" even though the sentence was specifically about American spelling.

--Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Acrylamide

Just a quick note to say "thanks" for your changes to acrylamide which, while small, have definitely improved the readability of the article (at least in my eyes). Physchim62 (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I spend too much of my time criticizing editors for bad edits to pass over the chance to thank an editor for good edits! Now I just have to correct an error you made in International System of Units that is unrelated to the complaint above ;) Physchim62 (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

WikiThanks

Thanks for your edits at Hamburg and Hamburg related topics. Sebastian scha. (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oxidative phosphorylation

Thanks for the copy edit. I've made this change, which I think you need for this sentence to still make sense and simplified the bit about plants. Overall, great work! Tim Vickers (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Claudia-anio.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Claudia-anio.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Combined oral contraceptive pill

Hi! I appreciate your copyediting of combined oral contraceptive pill, but disagree with a portion of the changes you've made. I hope you will read and reply to my comments at Talk:Combined oral contraceptive pill#24-July edits. Lyrl^Talk _C 21:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused by your most recent edit of the COCP article. You state that it is in line with Wikipedia's MoS, but the new discussion and links on the talk page are clear that it is not. It seems most likely that you have not had a chance to review the most recent discussion. In addition to the COCP talk page, I started a discussion on the MoS talk page where a few editors responded with what I found to be helpful explanations of policy, including a link to WP:HYPHENS. I hope you will review this discussion and reply again on the COCP talk page. Lyrl^Talk _C 22:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Usage of "none"

I see you edited the Glaucophyte article to change "none .. are" to "none .. is". While I'm generally a pedant myself, see e.g. the usage section of [6]. "None .. are" is a perfectly acceptable usage in many if not most dialects of English. I don't care either way, but I thought I'd make this point. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Not all logic is logical

Thanks for your recent edits on the quinolone articles. Much appreciated. On a side note the articles were reviewed and edited by an editor who uses the King's English. Hence the use of certain verbiage that you thought to be in need of correction was actually grammatically correct. For example while and whilst are more or less interchangeable when the meaning is although or whereas. However, whilst also means "when", so this has to be taken into consideration when changing from one form of English to another as to not change the actual meanings.Davidtfull (talk) 05:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Drphilharmonic, whilst I don't object to the most of the changes you've made as, to me, they are merely phrasing, there are a few changes that leave me befuddled... Occasionally you have messed up the meanings e.g. DNA - changing 'This process is called genetic fingerprinting, or more accurately, DNA profiling.' to 'This process is called genetic fingerprinting, or, more accurate, DNA profiling.' Changing 'their' to 'his or her' , and 'generally' to ',in general,' throws the readability - why use more words for the same meaning? I guess what I'm saying is that most of your changes are helpful, but please take the whole sentence into consideration - keeping its meaning and readability intact. (maybe not all terms you disagree with should be replaced?) Thanks. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I bring this up with respect to the same sentence in the DNA article ('This process is called genetic fingerprinting, or more accurately, DNA profiling.'). It's worth noting that English, being a natural language, doesn't adhere to any formal logic or formulated grammar rules. A statement that fits the grammatical rules precisely may not communicate the intended idea as effectively as one that is "incorrect" to a minor degree, but resides within general usage. In the case of the aforementioned sentence:

1. The phrase 'or more accurately' is correct from a logical standpoint, as the sentence employs parallelism, branching at the point between 'is called' and 'genetic fingerprinting'. You can think of it as saying 'This process is called genetic fingerprinting, or is more accurately called DNA profiling.', which is acceptable (see adverb).
2. Even if it were not grammatically correct, it would still be fine, because the construct '{verb} {objects}, or more {adverb}, {objects}' is used generally, and has reached the relatively unambiguous interpretation that I outlined in the previous point. That is how natural languages work. Brains are not computers; they do not parse things based on grammatical rules. They parse things based on familiar patterns, which may or may not correlate to grammatical rules.

Please don't apply prescriptive linguistics to the point that it obfuscates the article. If you want completely logical language, learn lojban and edit its Wikipedia. ~rezecib ^(talk) 04:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of preventing an edit war, I have, however, changed the sentence to an equally readable but more supposedly unambiguous form.

This process is formally termed [[DNA profiling]], but may also be called "genetic fingerprinting".

It is unacceptable to to revert a reversion without discussion, except in extremely obvious cases (such as clever vandalism). If you make an edit and it is reverted, you should instead change the text to something that addresses both concerns (if possible), or start a discussion on the relevant talk page (in this case, Talk:DNA). ~rezecib ^(talk) 05:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking for someone who is relentlessly logical

Hi Drphilharmonic,

I know you get complaints about being "too" logical, and I wonder if you'd be willing to help out in a dispute that might benefit from someone who knows a bit about logic and causality and isn't tied up in sexual politics and trans activism. If you're interested, you might skim through this paper for background on the competing psychological ideas, and then join the discussions at Talk:Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory (where someone is currently arguing that the etiology of a psychological condition is the condition's existence itself), and Talk:Feminine essence concept of transsexuality (where someone is trying to lose any information s/he deems to be psychological, rather than "scientific"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Replacing 'which' with 'that' isn't "logical", it's just a shibboleth invented in the Victorian era by middling people trying to show off their education, like not splitting infinitives. — kwami (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

However, it is, in fact, the use of a word that most-closely represents the intended meaning that is derived of logic: There is a grand distinction between They are scientists who agree with my theory and They are scientists that agree with my theory, the latter referring to a subset of scientists as the specific ones that agree with my theory, in contrast to those that do not; the former makes no such reference and, further, even suggests that all scientists agree with my theory. One word - that - replaces all the qualifying words necessary to convey the meaning of a specific historical scenario. The beauty - and power - of English evinces itself here, which the unlearned and unscholarly - with no understanding of language history and linguistics - irrationally repudiate, stating that, under all circumstances, who is for people and that is for non-people. In like manner, the same sort of anti-scholars confound listeners and readers with their continuous misuse of shall and will, reserving the former for first-person usage and the latter for second- and third-person usages, completely abnegating thousands of years of language history from which sculan and willan - with their distinct meanings - come. Concerning splitting the infinitive: No true language historian would support the directive Never split the infinitive, for not only would he/she be equipped with the knowledge of how and why to became part of the infinitive (and only in certain circumstances) but he/she would also not impose the idiotic rule of not placing a word or group of words between any two other words. Try rewording She asked me to kindly leave to convey the same meaning. Drphilharmonic (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And the logic applied to the distinction between who and that is the same as that between which (contracted form of who-like) and that, meaning that that specifies a subset of the referenced whole: There is a grand distinction between They are enzymes which degrade proteins and They are enzymes that degrade proteins, the latter referring to a subset of enzymes as the specific ones that degrade proteins, in contrast to those that do not. The former makes no such reference and, further, even suggests that all enzymes degrade proteins, a significant distinction, especially for those with limited understanding of the subject, who could leave the discussion with the incorrect interpretation. So the result of one's trying to appear educated by enforcing who and which as elite substitutes for that is corrupted communication and muddled meaning, with wanton disrespect for the meticulous morphology of the English language through thousands of years of its continuous adaptation to environmental and cultural conditions of its speakers.

[In like manner, are we going to have to defend, one day soon, the construction using the objective case of the pronoun in She wanted you and me to come and Between you and me because She wanted you and I to come and Between you and I "just sound much more educated"?] Drphilharmonic (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Adverbs

Why do you hate them? ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right, there is a big difference between, "the mutation is particularly visible in..." and, "the mutation is visible, in particular, in...." The first is giving a good place to find instances of the mutation, and the second starts out by saying that it's visible (golly), then provides examples, in two disjoint thoughts. There is no semantic difference between, "in Old English /o/ generally stems from..." and, "in Old English /o/, in general, stems from..." but the latter halts the sentence for no reason. Towards and toward are synonyms, and there's no excuse for "correcting" it. Please do not re-revert without discussion when someone takes issue with your edits. I will defend my revert to your heart's content if you don't insist on your opinion over those of other editors. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I will be restoring the original language soon if you have no response. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Colitose

Thanks for fixing the error on this page; it's amazing how long it persisted there unnoticed! Regards, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 00:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That/Which

The difference between these words has nothing whatsoever to do with "logic", it's purely grammatical. Please provide more accurately descriptive edit summaries. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

In correcting that and which, my description will remain "logic," for it has everything to do with logic and nothing to do with grammar: There is a grand distinction between They are enzymes which degrade proteins and They are enzymes that degrade proteins, the latter referring to a subset of enzymes as the specific ones that degrade proteins, in contrast to those that do not. The former makes no such reference and, further, even suggests that all enzymes degrade proteins, a significant distinction, especially for those with limited understanding of the subject, who could leave the discussion with the incorrect interpretation. So the result of one's trying to appear educated by enforcing which as an elite substitute for that is corrupted communication and muddled meaning, with wanton disrespect for the meticulous morphology of the English language through thousands of years of its continuous adaptation to environmental and cultural conditions of its speakers.

[The difference between these words has nothing whatsoever to do with "logic", it's purely grammatical.
should be stated
The difference between these words has nothing whatsoever to do with "logic"; it's purely grammatical.
or
The difference between these words has nothing whatsoever to do with "logic." It's purely grammatical.
(The above-stated represent two complete ideas (sentences), separated by a semi-colon or period. Logic, again, it is.)] Drphilharmonic (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification of exactly what breed of editor you are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Complete absence of intelligence and social skills evinces itself yet again. Drphilharmonic (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe that many Wikipedians wish you demonstrated functional social skills when you receive complaints like this. Wikipedia might be improved by these changes, but it is not improved by your choice to insult people who politely request that you use more informative edit summaries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

One, through his disguising an attack with a suggestion, containing an error that not only demonstrates his/her absence of intellectual prowess but also serves to dilute his argument, no less, is deserving of a greater criticism than I extended. Review the opening polite remark. Drphilharmonic (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the distinction here between "which" and "that" applies only in American English, and not in British English. To me the two sentences mean exactly and precisely the same, hence the edit summary "Logic" did not make sense to me until I read this discussion.

Even in American English, the distinction is disclaimed by some authorities. I use the two differently, so I appreciate Drphilharmonic's efforts to standardize the use of these pronouns to line up with the formal, if perhaps old-fashioned, distinction, but I fear that he and I are in the minority. All Brits and most Americans use the two interchangeably.

Concerning the original request, however, I see no reason why he can't label such edits as "grammar". In fact, I'd think that such a label would be an advantage, because far more Wikipedians believe themselves qualified to judge matters of logic than of grammar. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

According to the Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed.; sxn 5.202) "that; which ... In British English, writers and editors seldom observe the distinction between the two words." The distinction is therefore purely regional, and should not be forced onto an international project that accepts the conventions of British English. This fact has already been pointed out to you above by several other editors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

We in this international project cannot help that not only did members of a specific region learn wrong but they are so entrenched in their having learned wrong that their ego deprives them of the open-mindedness and quest for knowledge characteristic of true academics and scientists. If communication is better served through correct use of language then it should be employed, regardless of the offense to the unlearned. They should learn what is correct and, in their opening their mind to language history, etymology, philology, and logic, enable their newly-invigorated brain regions to invoke neurogenesis. Admission of greater understanding and enlightenment through scientific reasoning is admirable. Drphilharmonic (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Single-cell vs. single-celled

This may be another dialect difference, but to me "single-celled, prokaryote microorganisms" is perfectly correct (although I would prefer "single-celled, prokaryotic microorganisms"). So I'm not sure why you changed it to "single-cell, prokaryote microorganisms". Could you explain? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, the discussion's core is logic. I demonstrate through analogy:

- A report of 2 pages is a 2-page report.

- An electron of high energy is a high-energy electron.

We do not state a 2-paged report and a high-energied electron due to there being no action of paging or energying on the report and electron, resp.; reference is being made to the state-of-being of the report and electron.

By analogy, therefore, an organism of a single cell is a single-cell organism. There is no action of celling occurring here.

In contrast, however, there is a great difference between:

- a medium-sized piece of cake - there is reference to a specific action of someone's having cut a portion from the whole into a piece, that is, a piece of cake that was sized

and

- a medium-size piece of cake - there is no reference to any previous action on the cake, just a description of the state-of-being of the piece of cake.

Therefore, a substantive can be defined 100 percent of the time as, for example, cruci-form, triangle-shape, queen-size. Yet only a specific subset of these substantives may be labeled cruci-formed, triangle-shaped, queen-sized, that is, only those unto which the specific action of forming, shaping, sizing, resp., had been performed - a grand distinction that some "authorities" do not acknowledge, due to their deficiency of knowledge of language history.

So the reason for my using "logic" for the description is that, although a sentence might be correct in the grammatical sense, it could be completely wrong in the logical sense, as illustrated with the above, and with the "enzymes" example farther up. That is, all the elements of the sentence are composed in the proper syntax and comply with the grammatical rules of the language, but the sentence does not connote the proper meaning or conjure the proper images in the mind of the listener or reader; therefore, it does not make logical sense, or is altogether incorrect.

Why anyone would think that words can be used interchangeably is ever-astounding, for just by virtue of their being different words they possess different meanings, even if just a shade of difference. One's relying on "That is what we were taught" as his/her substance to an argument is highly unscholarly, to say the least, and even dangerous if one was taught wrong in the first place. And, because Britons are taught incorrect word-usage as having been mandated by inerudite scribes to the King's court a few centuries ago, all the while slapping in the face millennia-old language history, we now label their erroneous utterances and writings "dialectal," with their nonunderstanding of and disrespect for the distinctions between which and that, between who and that, between will and shall, between would and should (and the list goes on)? [Confer a few examples on this talk page.] "Authorities" that "disclaim" any distinction in this regard one will find without exception to be not linguists and language historians but unlearned pedants with neither knowledge of nor respect for linguistics and language history.

And being taught wrong is no excuse for perpetuating the wrong teachings. The scientist - the seeker of knowledge - of any discipline endeavors to sever emotional ties to prejudicial teachings and purposes to exercise a respect for history and the profound meaning of things. The quest for knowledge is the very precept of science, in this case, the science of communication through the word. Drphilharmonic (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see where you are coming from. However, natural language is defined by usage, not logic. Google returns about 2.4 million uses of "single celled" (with or without a hyphen). If you want to say that these are all errors, you are quite free to do so, but this doesn't change the reality that "single celled organisms" is an acceptable noun phrase in English with the same meaning as "single cell organisms".

(By the way, I taught computational linguistics for many years, and can assure you, with many quotations and sources if needed, that it is academic linguists who insist that language is defined by use, not logic, and that all dialects are equally valid as languages. As an individual, neither are propositions I find intuitively appealing.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Never had I claimed that language should be governed by logic over usage. I asseverate that, in order for clear communication to occur, there must be a balance between logic and usage, taking into consideration history and adaptation of language through cultural and sociological mutations. [Confer my short reply to another Wikipedian's inquiry under the heading Semantics on this talk page above.] Various individuals are missing the underlying message: If there is an alternative word or wording that more-closely defines - and, therefore, more-accurately conveys - the meaning of the idea of the speaker or writer, then we as speaker or writer are obligated to employ it, not just uphold the premise that, if others use it - even if misstates the idea - then we are free to use it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not a fly-by-night website or niche blog. Wikipedia URLs are among the first URLs returned on virtually any informational search on Google, so its content is received seriously not just by students of a specific topic but also by researchers and practitioners in specialty fields.

Google returns over 45 million URLs of websites containing me and my friend are..., with the phrase me and my friend as subject of the sentence whose predicate is are, and that is just with the predicate are. Compound that number with how many can be found with me and my friend as the subject of other predicates, and that is with friend as an element of the subject. Accrue the number of those using other substantives such as in me and my sister and me and my cousins; and accrue the number of those using other object-pronouns such as him and us and me and them as subjects, and on and on. Incorrect use of pronouns and compound phrases as subjects of predicates approaches, then, the billions. So, as long as one can "prove" a valid number of users of a word, usage of grammar, or syntactical structure - whatever that arbitrary number is, and whoever determines it - the word, usage of grammar, or syntactical structure is "acceptable" and we are at liberty to employ it? Furthermore, if we perform a bit of research, we would be able to support incorrect usage of any word, usage of grammar, or syntactical structure by even "literary" figures throughout history. So we should, then, cease teaching language and grammar - or anything, for that matter - in school. We could just pick everything up on the street, and employ "knowledge" the way it finds usage in its natural form. I can assure you from a neuroscience point-of-view that, whether you are conscious of it or not, your assessment of the credibility of a writer or speaker is based on the method and delivery of the content of the writer or speaker.

Now, if the writer is trying to convey the idea of an unpaired quarantined organism then the writer is correct in stating a single celled organism. But, if the writer is trying to convey the idea of an organism of a single cell, then a single-cell organism is the only option. Otherwise, muddled meaning by unlearned writers with absence of scholarship is the result. Therefore, "the reality" is that single celled organisms is NOT an acceptable noun-phrase in English with the same meaning as single cell organisms or single-cell organisms. Good writers and speakers craft their words to mean most accurately what they are trying to convey, not force their audience to guess or to assume the meaning trying to be conveyed.

In a similar vein, and to address a concern from the past:

Consider the statement The bacteria obviously resisted the enzyme, the likes of which pervade research material and Wikipedia. Is the conveyer-of-ideas here trying to communicate to us that the bacteria resisted in an obvious manner the enzyme - that is, we could see with our own eyes the process of resistance, in which the adverb obviously is used correctly? Or is the writer trying to convey to us that it is obvious - because now we have the results to show - that the bacteria resisted the enzyme, in which case, then, obviously is used incorrectly and is not an adverb, and the statement, therefore, should be It is obvious [to someone] that the bacteria resisted the enzyme. And the statement is not too wordy if it accurately conveys the meaning trying to be conveyed. Moreover, in the latter case, the obscurity of the idea virtually every time is purposefully cemented by deliberate omission of to whom it is obvious, elucidating yet again the paucity of scholarship of the writer of a statement like this: It is obvious to the average person walking the street? It is obvious to the astute researcher in biochemistry? It is obvious to whom?! This discussion goes back to dilution of the meaning of the statement and the complete discrediting of the writer.

What is troublesome about the abuse of such terms, which include unfortunately, apparently, evidently, interestingly, sadly, luckily, hopefully, more importantly, and the like, is that they have been exploited to the point where, now, the listener/reader is desensitized to the real meaning of the terms, rendering the terms almost useless. And they are not adverbs just because they end in ly. A kindly madam, a stately manor, and unscholarly writing prove the morphing of other parts of speech with the ly suffix. The statement Unfortunately, the bacterium's genetic material has mutated to break down the beta-lactam ring stands as a paradigm of unscholarly writing. Not only is the grammar faulty but also the logic is unsound: 1. The bacterium's genetic material has unfortunately mutated, that is, mutated in an unfortunate manner? 2. If the reader is to assume an alternative meaning of unfortunately: Is it unfortunate for the bacterium that its genetic material mutated? Or is it unfortunate for the biochemist working on the experiment? Or is it unfortunate for all of us or some of us in some way, and in what way? What is trying to be conveyed here? We are forced to guess or assume. Good writers and speakers do not force their audience to guess or to assume and they know enough about their subject to express themselves accurately and correctly.

True scientists - knowledge-seekers - are precise in their manner of imparting knowledge, lest there be a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of their message. That is, those with something of value to say do not want their message to be misinterpreted. Drphilharmonic (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That Wikipedia editors should endeavour to make their writing as clear as possible is a proposition I wholeheartedly endorse. Adverbs are indeed a perennial problem in written English: since they lie to some degree outside the normal structure of phrases, the part of the sentence they qualify cannot always be determined by their position, and written English lacks the intonation which removes the ambiguity in spoken English. Very often, I think, "importantly", "unfortunately", and so on, should simply be removed – they are rarely appropriate in an encyclopaedia article.

Returning to "single-celled" vs. "single-cell", I think you are simply wrong as to the logic (as well as to usage). One of the meanings of "celled" is made up of cells, as in "A honeycomb is a celled structure" ("cell" cannot be used here). "Multi-celled" and "single-celled" are derivatives of this. A "single-celled organism" is an organism which is made up of a single cell. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Enter, once again, someone's refuting his own argument with his own argument. You state: One of the meanings of "celled" is made up of cells, as in "A honeycomb is a celled structure." As illustrated by my example above, and corroborated by your example, there is the reference to an action occurring here, the action of making up or constructing that we want emphasized. So, if the writer or speaker is trying to convey the idea of worker-bees in the process of assembling lipopolysaccharides into a lattice whose ultimate form is a honeycomb, then one could state multi-celled, and, even more, I will agree, lattice-formed.

So, you see, again, relative to logic, it comes down to the images that I - the writer - want to create in the mind of my audience as I craft my words, but these - keep in mind - are just a smaller subset of the whole set describing the state-of-being of the honeycomb, which would comprise multi-cell and lattice-form. So, in contrast to the absence of paging in 2-page report and the absence of energying in high-energy electron, there is - if I want to convey the idea of construction - the reference to the action of building of cells, or celling, in multi-celled structure. Here, there is not just a simple reference to the structure's state-of-being - a grand distinction that many are missing, or choosing not to recognize.

Furthermore, in defining the human being as an organism comprising many cells, we are not trying to convey the idea of constructing trillions of cells into the form of a human being, represented by the term multi-celled organism. So, relative to the human being, multi-celled organism is idiotic. The idea that we want to convey in the definition of the human being is the state-of-being of the trillions of cells not the action of their being assembled into a whole. Therefore, we state that the human being is a multi-cell organism.

One can see the distinctions come to life in the term high-power battery-powered motor.

What you and others are trying to defend is the validity of statements such as, for example, It is funny when you want to express The weather today is strange. You argue that, because some people at some time and somewhere in some context would interpret It is funny as The weather today is strange, you are free to use anywhere you want It is funny in place of The weather today is strange. My contention is that - yes - there is a place for It is funny for meaning The weather today is strange, but The weather today is strange is just a small subset of meanings amid the greater range of meanings denoted by the statement It is funny. Just state The weather today is strange. Is that so hard? There are some people at some time and somewhere in some context that would interpret It is funny as The theatrical performance is humorous. And there are some people at some time and somewhere in some context that would interpret It is funny as Her behavior has always aroused my curiosity. The interpretations abound, but why let them abound when I can sculpt the precise meaning with my words so that I - as writer or speaker - create the images in the mind of my audience that I want my audience to conjure?

Why is all of this so hard to understand? When I deliver my explanations on a particular topic to those that really want to understand the reasons why to elements of a particular topic, I receive from 100 people out of 100 It is so simple and clear, so logical and Why has no-one ever explained it like that before? From neuroscience and psychological points-of-view, I have found that why it is so difficult for some others, however, to understand is that they do not want to understand. They do not want to see that single celled organism has not the same meaning that single-cell organism has, just as melancholy has not the same meaning that sad has, even though the two words are regarded to be synonyms and can in just some instances be used in the same context. THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT WORDS WITH TWO DIFFERENT HISTORIES. THEY CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE PRECISELY THE SAME MEANING. And even more compounded are the differences among phrases containing multiple words!

Language and language-processing centers of the brain comprise among the most-highly innervated regions of the human brain, resulting in language's being at the very core of what it is to be human. So to illustrate that those that are not seeing the full picture are inadequate in their expression of language is equivalent to an assault on their identity. Their closed mind is not receptive to knowledge because knowledge would mean understanding and understanding would mean an admission of being wrong and an admission of being wrong would be an assault on their being. So they cling to their beliefs and defend their stance as if it were their child whom they must safeguard as if their very own life depended on it. However, I also demonstrate that it is not a matter of being wrong on their part; it is really a matter of not seeing the whole right. So it is imperative to open the eyes, which will, in the end, invoke neurogenesis, the growth of tissue responsible for the development of knowledge and understanding. Drphilharmonic (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to use this argument ("they are two different words with two different histories; they cannot possibly have precisely the same meaning") you need to be more precise in the terms you use. Two words which are inflectional variants of the same lexeme are different words with precisely the same meaning, other than that inherent in their grammatical role. In the phrases "a gravel path" and "a gravelled path", the only difference is grammatical: either a noun or an adjective modifies the noun "path". In both cases the meaning is a path which is made from gravel. Older dialects of English preferred adjectives as noun modifiers; modern English increasingly uses noun + noun constructions. My contention is that "cell" and "celled" (in the phrases in dispute) are precisely the same as "gravel" and "gravelled" in my example: grammatical variants of one lexeme. Anyway, no more from me on this subject; I can see that we won't agree! Peter coxhead (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You refute your argument with your own argument yet again, continuing to reinforce the fact that your shameless obduracy precludes your being able to open your mind to understanding that THE TWO PHRASES CONJURE TWO DIFFERENT IMAGES. Your statement "Two words which [sic] are inflectional variants of the same lexeme are different words with precisely the same meaning" reflects not only a paucity of knowledge of language in general but also an absolute dearth of understanding of language history, linguistics, word etymology, and philology:

- a gravel path means a path comprised of gravel, involving no action but a state-of-being; that is, the path might have acquired its gravel through natural means; there is no reference to the action of graveling occurring here - a nomial adjective, that is, an ADJECTIVE DERIVED FROM a NOUN, in this case, the noun gravel

- a graveled path means a path graveled or surfaced with gravel, involving the action of graveling; that is, someone or something is responsible for having graveled the path - not just any ordinary "adjective," as you claim, but a verbial adjective, that is, an ADJECTIVE DERIVED FROM a VERB, in this case, the past participle of [to] gravel.

And, even among the verbial adjectives, there is great distinction, as in hanging jury and hung jury, represented by the present participle and the past participle, resp., of the VERB [to] hang. Again we communicate entirely different ideas by creating entirely different images in the mind, due to the use of "inflectional variants of the same lexeme."

This has to be explained to someone having "taught computational linguistics for many years"?

So you are proven wrong again when you state "the only difference is grammatical: either a noun or an adjective modifies the noun "path". Gravel in gravel path is not a noun; it is an adjective, as much an adjective as graveled in graveled path is. The big difference is what emphasis we want to place on the path when we modify it: just the general type of path it is or a specific action that is responsible for the type of path it is, represented by nomial adjective or verbial adjective, resp.

Your references to older dialects of English and modern English are as preposterous as your rationale is nonsensical:

First, your statement "Older dialects of English preferred adjectives as noun modifiers; modern English increasingly uses noun + noun constructions" is absurd. As illustrated above, a noun does not modify a noun; an adjective modifies a noun. The adjective can, however, be derived from a noun - a nomial adjective - just as an adjective can be derived from a verb - a verbial adjective. An adjective can even be derived from a prepositional phrase, as in on-the-job training, and a whole statement, as in does-whatever-she-feels-like-doing attitude.

This has to be explained to someone having "taught computational linguistics for many years"?

The statement The stone stones stoned the stoned stones complies with English rules of both grammar and syntax, so it is a valid English sentence. Because English is an analytical language, we must analyze each word in the sentence in order to determine what role each word in the context plays, that is, what part-of-speech each word is, in order to determine what the writer/speaker is trying to convey. Then we can determine the logic of the statement and, therefore, whether it makes logical sense.

Second, frequency of use does not support the reasons for the usage!

Third, if we take into consideration our above-stated examples regarding the multimillion returns on Google searches relative to incorrect usage of words, employment of grammar, and exercise of syntactical structure, we can ascribe the same amount of credibility to the "literacy" of writers through the ages. Frequency of usage is not tantamount to proper usage.

Cell and celled are two different words denoting TWO DIFFERENT IDEAS.

Gravel and graveled are two different words denoting TWO DIFFERENT IDEAS.

Open your mind and allow neurogenesis to occur. Drphilharmonic (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I came here from bacteria and have to say that I completely agree with Peter on this. Single-celled is grammatically and logically correct and (and this is probably the most important point) is the form that is in general use (with or without a hyphen). Even if you insist on your own personal definition that 'celling' must have taken place for this term to be 'logical', the organism has effectively encased, or 'celled', itself. Regarding you first two examples, the is no reason why a report shouldn't be 'two-paged' (formatted to fit two pages) or why an electron shouldn't be highly energized ('energied' just isn't the correct word), so I would actually question you own logic behind the whole thing... 'Single-cell' also works for me, and I've not changed it back, although personally I prefer 'single-celled'. I think you're doing a good job of correcting grammatical errors, but maybe you're a bit enamoured with the idea that language has to be logical. 'Hippopotamus' and 'seahorse' are both not logical (neither of them is a horse), but it's much snappier than calling the animal 'the creature erroneously known as a hippopotamus/seahorse'. Most of the edits are simply grammatical corrections, and you may be better off labelling them as such in your edit summaries. I personally don't care what you call them, but I imagine some editors get rather miffed about that sort of thing. THE SAME GOES FOR SHOUTING SO MUCH! ;-) Apart form that, keep on correcting! Rainbowwrasse (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The good news is that the retorts to my polemic-turned-dissertation have moved away from the imbecilic. The bad news is that they have reached the insane. Unless any future comments demonstrate at least a semblance of academic footing, with maybe even the slightest hint of their being the result of the author's having reviewed the already-addressed points, I will not be putting any more energy into this discussion. Drphilharmonic (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are unable to participate in a constructive discussion, please at least try to remain civil. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Super high frequency

Can I please ask you to undo your hyphenation of super high frequency. This term is rarely, if ever, hyphenated in this way and is inconsistent with numerous other articles and terms in this field.

I see that you have already been made aware that the convention on Wikipedia when one is reverted is to open a discussion rather than simply reapply the same edit. That behaviour is edit warring and is not approved. Please see WP:BRD for the right way of going about this. SpinningSpark 17:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Super, in this case, is not an adjective, with the same role as in It is a super day. Super, in this case, is a prefix on high, so the term should be super-high or superhigh, as is the case with ultra-high and ultrahigh.

There is a grand distinction between a super man and a superman.

And to state "This term is rarely, if ever, hyphenated in this way and is inconsistent with numerous other articles and terms in this field" is as preposterous as your proposal, as if we should defer correctness to usage of the illiterate. Furthermore, confer:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superhigh%20frequency. Drphilharmonic (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, here on Wikipedia, we should defer to Wikipedia policies. The relevant one here is WP:Common name. Dictiionaries are not the greatest of authorities on technical terms. SpinningSpark 18:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You are correct: "Dictionaries are not the greatest of authorities on technical terms," for not only are dictionaries not authorities on language usage but they make no claim as being such. My reference to a dictionary-definition was made only to illustrate that super-high frequency is more than just "rarely, if ever, hyphenated in this way," and, further, a cursory online search reveals usage by individuals in the science and medical communities. However, if your preferred term is, in fact, a WP:Common name, as substantiated by your expertise in the field and on the topic, then I defer. Drphilharmonic (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Los Angeles Symphony

Drphilharmonic, I'm going to update the article on the Los Angeles Symphony Orchestra and request your assistance. In 2005, you created the original article at . Would you please either update the article with citations or send the info to me, Joe OConnell - oconnell@lex.net Thanks Oconnell usa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC).

Joe, I would love to be able to assist you further and appreciate your wanting to expand the page. However, the information originally compiled for the page - as well as that for pages on the symphony/philharmonic orchestras of other cities - was an effort to establish the then-nonexistent pages and acknowledge the role and significance of the members of these institutions. The information was compiled directly from album covers and credits of music/recording artists of the 1970s, so, I fear, the information - although relevant - is outdated. Drphilharmonic (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

When a comma should and should not be used before "too" and "either"

It can be quite infuriating when encountering (and having to, then, edit) a sentence terminating with too or either and having to decipher - yet again - what the writer is trying to convey. Here is how punctuation with too and either should be handled:

Scenario 1

A previous discussion involved Mary's having made bread.

1. Aaron states Mary ate bread, too. Now, because too modifies ate, meaning that not only did Mary make bread but she also ate bread, we place a comma before too because too is not adjacent to the word that it modifies - ate. (Reworded: Mary also ate bread, alluding to her having also made bread.)
2. Aaron states Mary did not eat bread, either. Now, because either modifies did not eat, meaning that not only did Mary not make bread but she also did not eat bread, we place a comma before either because either is not adjacent to the phrase that it modifies - did not eat.

Scenario 2

A previous discussion involved Mary's having eaten pie.

1. Aaron states Mary ate bread too. Now, because too modifies bread, meaning that Mary ate not only pie but also bread, we place no comma before too because too is adjacent to the word that it modifies - bread.
2. Aaron states Mary did not eat bread either. Now, because either modifies bread, meaning that Mary did not eat not only pie but also bread, we place no comma before either because either is adjacent to the word that it modifies - bread.

"Not only... but [also]" and "Either... or"

Many of my edits in documents involve my having to correct the improper usage of the correlative-conjunctive phrases Not only... but [also] and Either... or. Notice in the above-stated examples how the phrases should be used: In each instance, the same part of speech follows not only and but [also], as is the case with either and or, in order to maintain logic and parallelism.

Using Not only... but [also]
Scenario 1:

• Not only did Mary make bread but [also] she ate bread.

Or

• Not only did Mary make bread but she [also] ate bread.

Scenario 2:

• Mary ate not only pie but also bread.

Scenario 3:

• Mary not only ate pie but [also] ate bread. [With different predicates: Mary not only ate pie but [also] made bread.]

Using Either... or
Scenario 1:

• Either Mary ate pie or Mary ate bread. [With different subjects: Either Mary ate pie or Aaron ate pie.]

Scenario 2:

• Mary either ate pie or ate bread. [With different predicates: Mary either ate pie or made bread.]

Scenario 3:

• Mary ate either pie or bread.
  

Note, also, that NO COMMA IS USED ANYWHERE IN THE PHRASES. Drphilharmonic (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Subject-Predicate Agreement

A couple examples of logical errors prevalent in both speaking and writing are illustrated in the following:

• A significant factor are the side-effects.

The main sentence, broken down into subject and predicate, is Factor is. The confusion for many people has basis in the fact that the complement of the predicate - in this case, side-effects - is plural. However, the predicate does not agree in number with its complement.

Therefore, the sentence should be stated A significant factor is the side-effects.

• Do either of you know the answer?

The main sentence, broken down into subject and predicate, is Either does know. The pronoun you in this statement is part of the prepositional phrase of you, which is a modifier of the subject either.

Therefore, the sentence should be stated Does either of you know the answer?

• One of the factors that determines the outcome is the oxygen level.

The main sentence, broken down into subject and predicate, is One is. The modifying phrase in the sentence - of the factors that... - contains the relative pronoun that, whose antecedent (the word to which it refers) is factors, which is plural. Therefore, because the subject that is plural, its predicate must be plural, making the predicate determine.

Therefore, the sentence should be stated One of the factors that determine the outcome is the oxygen level.

In like manner: She is one of those people that talk to themselves.
NOT
She is one of those people that talks to herself.
However, without the modifying phrase, it may be stated
She is one that talks to herself. (Here, the relative pronoun that is singular because its antecedent is one.)

Note, also, the use of the relative pronoun that as opposed to who above, in order to distinguish between the different types of people being discussed. Drphilharmonic (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Improper Use of Verb Tenses

The following represent situations in which the grammar and syntax of the statement are sound but a great error in communication is present due to improper use of verb tenses:
1. I would have liked to have been there.

It seems that some speakers and writers think that, because the predicate is in the [conditional] present-perfect tense, it would be correct to place the infinitive in the perfect tense, too. But what they are doing is to misstate their intended meaning. Here is the analysis:

Scenario 1:

• John invites Mark to a baseball game, but Mark is unable to go. Mark states to John
  

I would like to be there. Both the predicate of the sentence and the modifying infinitive phrase are in the present tense.

Scenario 2:

• John visits Mark the next day. Mark states to John
  

I would have liked to be there. Yesterday, at the time of John's invitation, Mark wanted to go. So, today, a time in the future, Mark states in the present-perfect tense his past desire of an activity that was to occur in the near-future.

Scenario 3:

• John never visited Mark that first day to invite Mark to the game (as presented in Scenario 1) but did visit Mark the second day to tell Mark about the game (as presented in Scenario 2). That is, Mark had not known of the game, and his first hearing about the game is occurring now during John's visit. Mark states to John
  

I would like to have been there. The predicate of the sentence is in the present tense and the modifying infinitive phrase is in the perfect tense because it is now that Mark would like to have done something that occurred in the past.

Scenario 4:

• We extend the circumstances in Scenario 3, but it is now the next day. That is, now tomorrow, John is visiting Mark, and Mark states to John his yesterday's desire to attend a game that occurred the day-before. Mark states to John
  

I would have liked to have been there. It is yesterday that Mark would have liked, because it is yesterday that Mark first heard of the previous day's game, an event that happened further in the past. Therefore, the predicate of the sentence is in the present-perfect tense and the modifying infinitive phrase is also in the perfect tense in order to convey the idea of its happening further in the past.

2. The researcher discovered that the enzyme was responsible for the break-down of glucose.

The enzyme is still responsible for the break-down of glucose, so the statement should be The researcher discovered that the enzyme is responsible for the break-down of glucose.

In like manner: What did you say your name was? should be What did you say your name is? Drphilharmonic (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no. In Esperanto and other relative-tense languages, you would be right. But English has absolute tense: "What did you say your name was?" is correct. (Or at least it's standard.) — kwami (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

So which is it: correct or standard or both or neither? Your illogical thought process, as well as your absence of understanding of absolute tense, elucidates the fact that you have no knowledge of the topic. Drphilharmonic (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Problems with "Who"/"Whoever" and "Whom"/"Whomever"

Who and whoever are pronouns used as subject of a predicate. Whom and whomever are pronouns used as object of a predicate.

A frequent mistake is made in statements such as

1. I will ask directions of whomever comes my way.

The confusion for many people has basis in the fact that the subject of the phrase comes my way is also object of the preceding prepositional phrase beginning with of. Subject takes precedence, because, from a logical perspective, the sentence is a contracted form of the statement Whoever comes my way is the person of whom I will ask directions.

Therefore, the sentence should be stated I will ask directions of whoever comes my way.

In like manner: She should give the answer to whoever needs it.

2. Whom shall I say is calling?

The confusion for many people in this type of statement has basis in the fact that, because the statement's dependent clause is interwoven through the statement's independent clause, it appears on the surface that:

• Whom could be object of the verb-phrase shall say
• Whom could be object of the verb-phrase is calling.

However, neither is the case: The main idea - independent clause - in this statement is Who is calling, and the phrase shall I say is a dependent clause modifying the independent clause. The sentence punctuated with the dependent phrase contained within commas is Who, shall I say, is calling? And the sentence unraveled is Who is calling, shall I say? Both forms elucidate who as subject of is calling.

Therefore, the sentence should be stated Who shall I say is calling?

Make note of the contrasting role, however, of the pronoun whom in Whom shall I call?

Here, whom is, in fact, object of the predicate call, which is elucidated in the reworded statement I shall call whom?

Therefore, the sentence should be stated Whom shall I call? Drphilharmonic (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

single-celled

The adjective single-celled is correct and is not "verbial" as you claim. This can easily be deomnstrated by placing the adjective in the predicate after a copula:

These organisms are single-celled.

NOT

These organisms are single-cell.

The adjective single-celled is the standard form in textbooks that decline to use the more technical term unicellular. The same is true for other similar morphological terms such as thin-walled, parallel-veined, etc. Please do not continue to replace the standard form with an erroneous one. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language and cannot find anything to support your assertions from "logic" that all words ending in "-ed" are "verbial" and somehow imply action. The CGEL does provide a test (Ch. 6, pp. 540-541) for distinguishing past participles of verbs from adjectives after a copula, as follows:

"She was sleeping." (progressive verb), because replacement of the verb was with the complex-intransitive verb became yields "She became sleeping," which is nonsensical.

By comparison, "He was distressed. (adjective of state) can freely change to "He became distressed," or "He seemed distressed."

To apply this to celled:

"The fungus was single-celled"; "The fungus became single-celled"; "The fungus seemed single-celled."

This demonstrates that single-celled is an adjective that describes a state, and not a verb that describes an action. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In case you prefer evidence from an American source, the American Heritage Dictionary defines Cyclops as "any of the three one-eyed Titans..." (emphasis mine) and does not say "any of the three one-eye Titans..." --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "logic" doesn't have a lot to do with how we speak. English is not an artificial language project, even if some would like it to be. The first entry for "celled" in the OED is furnished with cells ... single-, one-, two-celled. — kwami (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Grammatical nonsense

Please explain the grammar of "which was it is presumed a fungus or lichen" as a subordinate clause. What is the tense of the clause's primary verb?

Please explain why you believe, in a compound verb, adverbs belong between a principal verb and its helping verb. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Fungus

For whatever it's worth, I thought your changes to Fungus included some that were constructive, and others that were not. I certainly see no problem with you using that and which as you do – I think the CMoS usage promotes unambiguous writing, and have made similar changes to many articles myself. The changes to the positions of modifiers (eg "this form of growth has only been described for a few species" --> "been described for only a few species") were also helpful. But I agree with everyone else that "single-celled fungus", not "single-cell fungus", is natural English as used by reputable sources, and that's more important than whether it's logical. So I've made a partial revert of your last reversion of EncycloPetey at Fungus, which retains the changes that I think we can all agree are constructive. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

As another editor watching the fungus article, I agree with what Adrian has written above, and think EncycloPetey has provided a convincing argument (in the above section) regarding "single-celled" (or would you write "a one-eye dog"?). Sasata (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

Your edit warring on this article, without apparent attempt to build consensus, has been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither the role nor the purpose of a dictionary is to dictate correctness of language. Dictionary-definitions themselves of the word dictionary do not contain the phrases the source of correctness of language usage, the language authority, the last word on the use of the word. Dictionary-definitions do, however, contain phrases such as listing of words and their meanings, reference of words, terms, and expressions, and information on words and their etymologies, which includes incorrect and standard and idiomatic usages as well as correct usages. True scholars and scientists strive for clear understanding and communication through usage of the correct as derived of language history, word etymology, and the logic of the context. They do not arbitrarily use words that, through misuse by the illiterate through the ages, have become - via thought-free, parrot-like repetition - "standard," thereby affording them license to use the words because now a compilation of definitions as uttered by idiots through the ages - now labeled a "source" - gives them authority to do so.

Because the imbecilic retorts to my polemic-turned-dissertation have intensified to the point of representing the insane, unless any future comments demonstrate at least a semblance of academic footing, with maybe even the slightest hint of their being the result of the author's having reviewed and somewhat understood the already-addressed points, I will not be putting any more energy into these discussions. I cede to the cerebrum-deficient tsunami. Drphilharmonic (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Adverbs and African trypanosomiasis

You recently changed:

"Such screening efforts are important because early symptoms are not evident or serious enough to warrant patients with gambiense disease to seek medical attention, particularly in very remote areas." (emphasis added)

to:

"Such screening efforts are important because early symptoms are not evident or serious enough to warrant patients with gambiense disease to seek medical attention, in particular, in very remote areas." (emphasis added)

This change is incorrect because it shifts the meaning of the original to an unintended, and nonsensical, meaning. In the original version, the adverb particularly modifies the (adverbial) prepositional phrase "in very remote areas", thus lending emphasis to that phrase. In your revised version, the (adjectival) prepositional phrase that replaced the adverb now modifies the preceding noun phrase "medical attention", and emphasizes that it is medical attention, rather than some other kind of attention, that should be sought. As you can see, the change alters the emphasis, and thereby the intended meaning, of the sentence. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This is precisely why my original edit, without a comma following in particular, is the correct one. Without the comma after in particular, the emphasis is not placed on medical attention; it is placed on in very remote areas.

There is a grand distinction between

They are displaying particularly mindless behavior

and

They are displaying in particular mindless behavior

that an editor and his ilk are incapable of comprehending because their deficiency of neural tissue and their concomitant abhorrence to expansion of their brain's cognitive and logic-processing centers prevent their ever possessing the aptitude necessary for the assemblage of ideas into intelligible, substantive meaning. Drphilharmonic (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Your analogy above is flawed because there is a verb placed immediately before the adverb and an adjective of a noun phrase following the adverb. In the article in question, there is a noun before the new phrasing and an adverbial prepositional phrase following it. The proposed new phrase "in particular" is an adjectival phrase. As such, it would still modify the noun phrase preceding it rather than the adverbial phrase that follows it. It is also inelegant and confusing to readers to duplicate a preposition in successive phrases, in this case doubly so because the two phrases utilize different meanings of that preposition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As you have done in each of your previous responses, you have again refuted your argument with your own argument.

There is a grand distinction between

...medical attention in particular, in very remote areas

and

...medical attention, in particular in very remote areas.

The modification of the inherent meaning of a statement by a solitary element of punctuation, in this case a comma, is evinced here. And the previous statement is even more evidence, for it is written

...by a solitary element of punctuation, in this case a comma

not

...by a solitary element of punctuation in this case, a comma, which would altogether redefine the role of in this case.

The point is that words and wording, arrangement of the words and wording, punctuation, and, relative to speaking, inflection, intonation, and cadence all contribute to the meaning and the underlying logic of a statement. Although the statement in question can be regarded by some as inelegant, the role of all true scholars and scientists is not to inflict personal tastes as accumulated over a lifetime of teachings - which then by habitual use become accepted and then by more use become standard and then by even more use become beautiful - and then impose a personal idea of elegant on others but to sculpt the words into a statement that most closely represents the intended meaning of the writer or speaker, in recognition of and respect for language history, etymology, and logic.

These discussions have concluded for me; I will not even be observing the activity [relative to these discussions] on this talk page. Drphilharmonic (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Your edit summaries

Please note that WP:CIVIL applies to edit summaries. This one [7] is very rude and shows an unhealthy arrogance on your part. You could be blocked for doing this. Graham Colm (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that you are continuing to write rude comments about other editors, so I have blocked your account for 12 hours. Perhaps you might want to spend this time reading WP:CIVIL. Graham Colm (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Many thanks for the fixing of my grammar. I am hopeless thus appreciate you efforts at hepatitis C. I am working on a global project here [8] and we could use a grammar expert like you. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your having expressed thanks, Doc James. I would be happy to assist you. Drphilharmonic (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Quotations

Please do not "correct" the grammar of quotations. Quotations cited from a source must match exactly the source from which they are taken. (See MOS:QUOTE for further help.) --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Brassicaceae

Your recent editing history at Brassicaceae shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

Please note that an adverb is not hyphenated before an adjective excpet when it is a compound modifier. See WP:MOS. Normally, an adverb and adjective are not thus conjoined as they are separate parts of speech. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• The user above just beat me to it: I was going to block you for edit-warring (and the use of an IP to avoid scrutiny--as if your edit summaries aren't clearly yours). Mind you, I agree with your edits, but warring is not the way to go. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  The consensus of editors at WP:PLANTS does not agree. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Are you talking about "a now-defunct order"? There's nothing wrong with that, as far as I'm concerned. "Now-defunct" is a kind of compound, and the rule about separate-not-to-be-conjoined is new to me. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• BTW, there was no grammatical error to warrant this edit summary. Both versions are valid. Drphilharmonic's edit summary was of course unacceptable. Drphilharmonic, while I appreciate your contributions, your combative attitude is not productive, clearly. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for violating the three-revert rule on Brassicaceae.  Your block will expire in {{{x}}}. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. EncycloPetey (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

--EncycloPetey (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent Edits

1. If my intention was to conceal my identity concerning my recent edits, I would have used a different writing style. It is, in fact, the case that my server went down during my edits, so my username was not recorded upon my clicking on Save page.
2. My history on my multiple recent edits will show that not once had I just undone the previous edits: At each edit, I offered a different example to illustrate the basis of the edit, an alternative descripton, or an analogy, with sometimes a different phrasing of the edit in question in effort to illustrate my reasoning and reach compromise. But the editors of opposing viewpoints based on a contention with only one element within a whole page of corrections chose to keep mindlessly clicking on undo every time, thereby nullifying the entire content of a whole page of edits, eradicating in some instances 20-30 minutes of my earnest effort in respectfully assisting the authors in the delivery of their message. With nothing but the desire to be antagonistic, they, in fact, are the ones guilty of breaking the three-revert rule. Rather than in academic, scholarly, intellectual fashion try to understand my reasoning - thereby enriching themselves on language history, linguistics, etymology, philology, and logic - they chose to incessantly engage in combat by mindlessly clicking on undo and then exercise their power to block, evincing bully-like behavior characteristic of profound ineptitude. Drphilharmonic (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Drhpilharmonic, I have discussed part of your contention (the "one point") with another editor; see my talk page where User:PaleCloudedWhite said they'd have another look. As for the identity, you can place an unblock request here to have another admin look at it. As far as I can see, though, a block for edit warring is appropriate. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• FWIW, I'll place a different blocking template below with clear instructions on how to request an unblock. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Edits Explained

• The term now in now-defunct family does not play the same role that now in family is now defunct plays. In the latter situation, now retains its adverbial role and is equated to at this moment, making the statement family [is] at this moment defunct or, reworded, at this moment, family [is] defunct. Reinforcing this reasoning: It can be noted that the phrase can be stated, although awkward, at-this-moment-defunct family, analogous to does-whatever-she-feels-like-doing attitude.

As can be seen, the same analogy cannot be applied to well in, for example, well-tempered pan, because well does not play a strict adverbial role and is tied to tempered to become a one-unit adjective modifying the substantive pan.

However, if we force the adverbial role on well, we can state the pan tempered well.

If one were instructed to temper the pan, but the pan were already tempered, he/she could state

It is an already-tempered pan

or

The pan is already tempered

illustrating here that already, too, can retain its adverbial role as well as become part of the one-unit adjective

all of which representative of centuries of word etymology, linguistics, and morphology of multiple languages into the powerful hybrid communication-tool known as English.

• In one of the cities has fallen, one is indeed the subject of has, if the statement were just One of the cities has fallen.

But one is NOT the subject of the verb [to] have in

Troy is one of the cities that have fallen, in which of the cities that have fallen is a modifying phrase - part of a subordinate clause - on Troy is

reworded as

One of the cities that have fallen is Troy

reworded again as

Of the cities that have fallen, one is Troy.

All phrases show clearly that One is the subject of the predicate is and is NOT the subject of the verb in the subordinate clause, in this case have.

Likewise, Either of the choices that has been offered is, too, nonsensical from a logic perspective and incorrect from a grammar perspective:

The antecedent of that is choices, which is plural. However, where the singular subject either would be subject of a predicate is in

Either of the choices that have been offered is a valid selection, in which of the choices that have been offered is just a modifying phrase on Either is a valid selection, which can be seen in its reworded forms

Either is a valid selection, of the choices that have been offered

and

Of the choices that have been offered, either is a valid selection.

Also note the difference between

She is one that is highly recommended (in which the antecedent of the subject that is one)

and

She is one of those employees that are highly recommended (in which the antecedent of the subject that is employees)

which, reworded, is

Of those employees that are highly recommended, she is one.

[The pronoun that is used to distinguish between the two groups, usage of which dating back to the Anglo-Saxon.]

• There is a great distinction between the role of chemically in

Chemically, TPP consists of a pyrimidine ring...

and that in

chemically modified.

In the latter, chemically does play an adverbial role on modified; but, in the former, chemically is not an adverb. Linguists and language historians to this day have not been able to devise an accurate term to describe the role of words used in this sense: Are they adverbial conjunctions or conjunctive adverbs? And these are terms used only because they "look like" adverbs but at the same time introduce statements in the manner of conjunctions such as and and but. The consensus is neither answer, for they neither conjoin ideas nor modify another term. Chemically in this sense and other nonsensical terms such as Unfortunately, Surprisingly, More importantly, Apparently, Clearly, Hopefully, Firstly, and their kind can be reworded to convey a more accurate meaning and a more scholarly tone: In chemical terms..., for example. In:

Surprisingly, the beta-lactam ring was degraded

What does surprisingly mean and what is it supposed to accomplish? Surprisingly is not an adverb modifying a verb, and, if we are to presume that at some point in the past someone was surprised or acting in a surprising manner, who is it: a specific researcher, a group of researchers, the reader, we as a whole society, the bacterium in question? Elimination of the word is preferred, for it is unnecessary. However, rewording the statement eliminates the confusion, at least:

To the surprise of the researchers, the beta-lactam ring was degraded.

• The discussion with side-effect had been addressed (see above on this talk page) with an editor expressing disagreement with the hyphenated version, and, as is customary when emotion-based absence of scholarship instead of academic acuity based on logic pervades the discussion, the argument of the former can be quashed without effort. My reply (from the above-stated original exchange) follows:

Your first dictionary reference - www.dictionary.com - cites the noun form side-effect in its first entry. So, contrary to your [erroneous] assertion, the one-word idea expressed in written form as side-effect is, in fact, recognized and used; you refuted your own argument.

Moreover, the perspective from logic and language history is this: It is recognized that side, in the phrase side door, is pronounced side door, with equal emphasis on both words, signifying that the phrase is, in the mind, two distinct ideas: door on the side [of the house]. However, side in side door does not have the same function that side in side-effect has:

It is not an effect on the side [of something]. Pronunciation of the two words together as side-effect proves their coming together as one idea, and establishes from both logical perspective and linguistic history its correct spelling: side-effect. (Anglo-Saxon pronunciation patterns are referenced and elaborated on above.)

This is precisely how

mail man (with equal emphasis on both words due to separate ideas in the mind)

became over many years of usage

mailman (with pronunciation emphasis on the first syllable due to the coming together of both words into a single unit in the mind).

And the same occurs with all compound words in English, as it is the Anglo-Saxon propensity to shift emphasis on syllables as the inherent meanings of the terms change.

As such, the analogy is extended in side-chain, supported by the same dictionary sources as those above-stated, and also supported by researchers and writers, which an online search will affirm. [Also note that it can be stated

...the same dictionary sources as those stated above

as well as

...the same dictionary sources as those above-stated

depending on the role that the writer wants each word in the statement to play.]

• It has already been proven above that

"It is one of eight plant family names that has an accepted alternative name that does not bear the suffix -aceae"

is not only utterly nonsensical but also incorrect in the grammatical sense and confusing to those not familiar with the topic. In fact, the statement intended is

It is one of eight plant family names that have an accepted alternative name that does not bear the suffix aceae"

whose logic can be seen through its rewording

Of the eight plant family names that have an accepted alternative name that does not bear the suffix aceae, it is one.

The issue with this statement, as can be seen in both written forms, involves the number of modifiers and subordinate clauses, which could leave many readers confused about what is trying to be communicated. The role of the scientist is to share knowledge and eliminate all doubt in his/her delivery of that knowledge, not compound it. It was my expectation during the various edits that an original author of the page would accept the small task of helping to clarify the statement, as well as support my eliminating the hyphen from the suffix: The suffix is aceae NOT -aceae; there is no hyphen in the suffix; the italics label the ending as a suffix. Yet, again, editors oozed from the woodwork in full-blown emotional frenzy to mindlessly click on undo, without any intention to try to understand my message or make the sentence meaningful or even remotely intelligible. Furthermore, this is not an area where unfortunately [sic] grammar is less the determining factor than usage, for it is, in fact, proper grammar and syntax that would convey the proper message and its underlying logic to the reader. And that plant-orientated editors didn't see this because they knew what was [sic] meant speaks volumes on the professionalism and intellectual prowess of these editors, and the resultant credibility that they grant Wikipedia articles. Drphilharmonic (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Brassicaceae edit summary

Hello. I wish to apologise for the tone of my second edit summary in the recent exchanges at the above article. I can see from your musings above that you have read my postings on User:Drmies's talk page, and so have seen that I believe there was an initial grammatical error concerning the plant family names. I could clearly see that your edits on this matter produced a result that made no sense in a scientific sense (which was frustrating), but I hadn't noticed the initial existing error, which I think made the meaning potentially vague. This oversight on my part led to my slightly hectoring edit summary, for which I apologise. As I wrote at Drmies's talk page, "I should be more circumspect". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate not only your open-mindedness but also your having come forward to express yourself on this matter, PaleCloudedWhite. Drphilharmonic (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not breach WP:NPA

I have deleted content from this page in accordance with WP:NPA, which says, "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks. Graham Colm (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

that/which in BE

Hi Drphilharmonic. I noticed that you have made a lot of edits concerning which/that. While I follow your 'logic' in articles written in AE, please note that in BE (and other regional variants) the sentence 'Amylases are enzymes which hydrolyse starch.' is correct in terms of both logic and grammar. This is due to a slightly different meaning of the word which in BE. This definition of which is different from the current definition in AE, but it is not "wrong". You may like to take this into account when editing BE articles. Please do not take this comment as a criticism of your editing, it is only an observation. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

A quixotic quest

Drphilharmonic, you're embarked on an entertainly quixotic quest to apply logic to language, but, like the Man of La Mancha's mission, it's doomed to failure and disappointment.

As ~rezecib has already pointed out on this page, "English, being a natural language, doesn't adhere to any formal logic". Again, as ~rezecib has pointed out, "Brains are not computers; they do not parse things based on grammatical rules. They parse things based on familiar patterns, which may or may not correlate to grammatical rules." As both a linguist and a computer scientist, I emphasise ~rezecib's futher point that "[b]rains are not computers; they do not parse things based on grammatical rules. They parse things based on familiar patterns, which may or may not correlate to grammatical rules."

-- Jmc (talk) 03:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Los Angeles Symphony Orchestra for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Los Angeles Symphony Orchestra is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles Symphony Orchestra until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —Tim Pierce (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)