Jump to content

User talk:Piotr Zaborski

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Piotr Zaborski! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyskusja:Podział_władz

[edit]

Hi Piotr,

So you believe that you found some mistakes in the following text:. 

Would you like me to switch to English here - in Polish Wikipedia? No problem, especially I contribute mostly to the English Wikipedia. But seriously, I've never had a good experience with non-native English speakers, even if they graduated in English studies (poor vocabulary, fake fluency at the expense of accuracy and to mask bad pronunciation). But I don't care your pronunciation and fluency. I have only one condition - your written English must be natural and grammatical. But what about the other interlocutors? ;-)

The Wikipedian Tar Lócesilion surely read my post, and if he had actually found any mistakes, he would have been the first to point them out. Not necessarily by himself. He could just have asked someone else, like you ;-)

Perhaps your level of English is not high enough to understand all the nuances, especially if you read something different from what is found in textbooks. I happen to be a perfectionist, and being criticized for inadequacy or mistakes is what I love because it is a great opportunity to improve my skills. My errors are valuable for me, but I can't find any in my text. 85.193.232.244 (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm not sure why you are starting this discussion on English Wikipedia, as it regards our contributions to the Polish version. Also, please note that I'm not an English expert, so if you really want to improve your skills, you will be better off contacting some native English professional. That being said, here are the issues I've found in your text:
  • The word care, when it functions as a verb, is used without an object. In other words, it shouldn't be followed immediately by a noun phrase. As a result, "But I don't care your pronunciation and fluency." would be considered a mistake by every authoritative resource I was able to find. There are several ways to improve it, such as:
    • But I don't care about your pronunciation and fluency.
    • But I don't care for your pronunciation and fluency. (probably less common, possibly ambiguous as "care for" has two different meanings)
    • But I don't care what your pronunciation and fluency are.
    • But I don't care if your pronunciation and fluency are correct.
    • ... and possibly some other, less common variants.
  • The phrase "especially I contribute mostly to the English Wikipedia", while probably grammatically correct, sounds forced and doesn't convey what I think you've meant. I don't see especially followed immediately by a clause very often (if at all), as in such scenario it would more naturally be applied only to the subject. In this case, it would be "especially I", as if you wanted to single out yourself. What I think you've really meant is "especially considering the fact that I contribute mostly to the English Wikipedia", or "especially that I contribute mostly to the English Wikipedia" for short, or "especially as I contribute mostly to the English Wikipedia", which I think sounds the most natural. I've also seen especially put directly before the verb phrase to achieve similar meaning: "I especially contribute to the English Wikipedia".
  • Finally, a little nitpick: When talking about websites, it is most common to use at when referring to the address (e.g. "you can find it at facebook.com") or on when referring to the site name (e.g. "you can find it on Facebook"). I think your first sentence would sound better if you used "on Polish Wikipedia", instead of "in Polish Wikipedia", although the latter is not an error per se, just a less common form. Still, sounds a bit unnatural to me.
As for your suggestion that I may lack the sophistication to understand all the nuances in your text, that's possible. If you still think you've made no errors, feel free to correct me. Who knows, maybe I'm the one who is experiencing Dunning–Kruger effect here? Piotr Zaborski (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My response starts here

  • Frankly, I'm not sure why you are starting this discussion on English Wikipedia [...]

Because I want to improve my fluency in English to the level of native English speakers, or at least close to that; not to ever leave my country, but to feel better. Even now I feel as if I was born again in a second language. I realize that it sounds crazy, but I am very ambitious. I am self-taught because Polish teachers of English, graduated from Polish universities are not very competent. English studies in Poland teach only about English but not the language itself. Most people I know have learned English for many years in schools and are not able to say the most basic phrases after that. That's why I have decided to learn English myself.

  • The word care, when it functions as a verb, is used without an object [...]

You are absolutely right. My mistake was glaring and obvious, and I am ashamed of it. However I know perfectly well the difference between intransitive and transitive verbs. So the link provided by you was enough for my scientific mind (I am a geek). But thanks for the lecture, which was very interesting :-).

  • The phrase "especially I contribute mostly to the English Wikipedia" [...]

Again, my obvious mistake. Your tips were great!

  • Finally, a little nitpick: When talking about websites [...]

Here are some of my research findings (Google mode = verbatim):
"found in the Wikipedia article" 197k
"found on the Wikipedia article" 104k
but generally you are right.

  • Who knows, maybe I'm the one who is experiencing Dunning–Kruger effect here?

You witty remark just floored me. I realize that I'm the one who suffers from illusory superiority, not you. (A great article by the way.)

To sum up, you gave me a lesson in humility. Thanks :-) 85.193.232.244 (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you liked my response :) As for in/on Wikipedia: I agree that "found in [...] article" is more natural than "found on [...] article". That wasn't the context we were talking about, though, as the word article wasn't used in your text. In fact, it wasn't even about the article, it was about its talk page. When I search for "found in Wikipedia" vs "found on Wikipedia", I get 574k and 2310k results, respectively. Also, when I put "found in Wikipedia" in the search box, the first suggestion I get is "i found this on wikipedia". Then again, I don't feel strongly about it. Both variants are valid stylistic choices, I just think one sounds more natural.
As a side note: When I look at "found in the Wikipedia" vs "found on the Wikipedia", the in version is vastly more popular. However, if you look at the context in which those were used, in most cases "Wikipedia" is not the whole noun phrase ("in the Wikipedia namespace", "on the Wikipedia page", "in the Wikipedia infoboxes", "on the Wikipedia site" etc.).
Have a nice day! Piotr Zaborski (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course context is absolutely crucial. That's why I wrote: "generally you are right". Why "generally"? Because the phrase "in Wikipedia" (not followed by "articles", "talks" or other nouns) is also very common, even in books. It's not easy to find such phrases in Google Search because dots and commas are ignored. But I have invented a workaround - the word "but". Here are my findings ("k" means x1000):
  • "on Wikipedia, but" 106k, Books: 2.4k
  • "in Wikipedia, but" 53k, Books: 1.6k
  • "found on Wikipedia, but" 13k, Books: 279
  • "found in Wikipedia, but" 17k, Books: 45
Happy Christmas! 85.193.232.244 (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Piotr_Zaborski&oldid=816809824"