User talk:Ankurjain: Difference between revisions
Tintin1107 (talk | contribs) |
m Oops, forgot to sign |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Please review this when you have time. Thanks, [[User:Tintin1107|Tintin]] ([[User_talk:Tintin1107|talk]]) 13:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC) |
Please review this when you have time. Thanks, [[User:Tintin1107|Tintin]] ([[User_talk:Tintin1107|talk]]) 13:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC) |
||
== Bunty aur Babli == |
|||
Ankurjain, I reverted your edits to Bunty aur Babli. We're trying to keep synopses short and sweet, rather than long and possibly boring, and some of your English was ungrammatical (understandable if English is not your first language). The only point on which I do have a question is whether the Amitabh Bachchan character was a police commissioner, or just a policeman. You might be right there. What was his EXACT rank in terms of the Indian police hierarchy? Might be best to use that. [[User:Zora|Zora]] 18:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
Ankur, I corrected the plot points about which you complained. You're right, I haven't seen the movie. It's just that the previous synopsis had been written by someone who wanted to include every single detail in the movie; it was long, muddled, and boring. Other editors complained but did nothing, so I finally entered the fray, armed with nothing but the old synopsis and what I'd read about the movie online. I don't at all mind correcting plot details if they're wrong. |
|||
As for your English -- it is simply not idiomatic. It's not that it's British. I'm comfortable with British English. I've been a volunteer proofreader at Distributed Proofreaders for several years and I have proofed over 25,000 pages there, of which the majority have been British English. I'm a hard-core fan of Victorian triple-deckers. Furthermore, I copyedit and proofread for a living. I'm NOT trying to hurt your feelings. I understand just how hard it is to bring a second language up to the standard of one's first. None of my other languages will ever be as good as my English. |
|||
You wrote: However, once they reach there, realising that their ways separate from hereon, they decide to return to their con ways. |
|||
Hereon is an antique word, a fusty word, and if that's what you intended, you used it incorrectly. It means "upon this" and might be used thus: "Hereon they divided their booty and wended their separate ways." Did you perhaps mean "here on"? If so, that's TOO colloquial. "Realising that their ways separate" -- that doesn't make sense. Exactly what "ways" do you mean? Their travel plans? Their life choices? If they are choosing to separate, then they don't "realise" anything; they decide. But if they have decided to separate, how is it that they are returning to "their con ways"? By the way, "con ways" is also not quite right. It's not good slang. Slang would be "go back on the con," I think. (I'm not the best person to consult re slang.) But that wouldn't be right in an encylopedia article. "Resume their career of crime and deception" would be more formal. Or you could say "return to their evil ways." There are many possible ways to say this, but your way isn't right. |
|||
You wrote: ... to swindle more people all over UP to save enough money to go to Mumbai. |
|||
Too long, too choppy. The rhythm is "ta-dum, ta-dum, ta-dum, ta-dum." It sounds like the nursery rhyme about the house that Jack built. Better to split into two clauses or sentences. "They roam Uttar Pradesh, committing a series of audacious swindles. Once they have saved enough money, they plan to travel to Mumbai." Or something like that. Better to write Uttar Pradesh rather than UP, as most non-Indians won't understand UP. |
|||
You wrote: my english has found an unfavourable assessment with you. That would be better phrased as: You have unfavorably assessed my English skills. Cap English, avoid passive when possible. You assess something, or you conduct an assessment OF something. "With" is the wrong preposition. |
|||
Based on my brief experience teaching English as a second language, I'd have to say that the nuances of phrasal verbs [http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-phrasal-verbs_3.htm] are the hardest things to get right (or perhaps they're tied with insane English spelling) -- particularly as it seems to be the sort of thing the texts just expect you to get by osmosis. |
|||
You asked! I'm not trying to make you feel bad! |
|||
If you have a broadband computer connection and don't have to pay by the minute, you might enjoy proofreading at Distributed Proofreaders. You really engage with the texts, and read an incredible range of material -- from stuffy diplomatic memoirs to boys' adventure novels to manuals on concrete construction. We even have a team of Indian proofreaders. |
|||
If you just want free books, BTW, you can get thousands of free e-books at manybooks.net. |
|||
Also -- if English style isn't YET your strong point, it's probably better to start new articles, on topics that haven't yet been covered, or to work on stubs, rather than rewrite articles that are OK if not perfect. If you can do the research and organization, other people can rewrite. There are a great many older Indian movies without articles -- some of them very famous movies -- and any work you could do on those would be appreciated. [[User:Zora|Zora]] 09:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 09:02, 25 November 2006
Welcome
Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. Are you from Delhi by any chance ? Tintin (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, there -- no worries, I'll have everything fixed in a moment. For now, see WP:MOVE and WP:HISTMERGE for an explanation. Luna Santin 19:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Alrighty, all fixed up. For future reference, please move pages via the move function. Thanks for your time! Luna Santin 19:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not at all, you were being bold and fixing a problem. :) Luna Santin 19:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Please review this when you have time. Thanks, Tintin (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Bunty aur Babli
Ankurjain, I reverted your edits to Bunty aur Babli. We're trying to keep synopses short and sweet, rather than long and possibly boring, and some of your English was ungrammatical (understandable if English is not your first language). The only point on which I do have a question is whether the Amitabh Bachchan character was a police commissioner, or just a policeman. You might be right there. What was his EXACT rank in terms of the Indian police hierarchy? Might be best to use that. Zora 18:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Ankur, I corrected the plot points about which you complained. You're right, I haven't seen the movie. It's just that the previous synopsis had been written by someone who wanted to include every single detail in the movie; it was long, muddled, and boring. Other editors complained but did nothing, so I finally entered the fray, armed with nothing but the old synopsis and what I'd read about the movie online. I don't at all mind correcting plot details if they're wrong.
As for your English -- it is simply not idiomatic. It's not that it's British. I'm comfortable with British English. I've been a volunteer proofreader at Distributed Proofreaders for several years and I have proofed over 25,000 pages there, of which the majority have been British English. I'm a hard-core fan of Victorian triple-deckers. Furthermore, I copyedit and proofread for a living. I'm NOT trying to hurt your feelings. I understand just how hard it is to bring a second language up to the standard of one's first. None of my other languages will ever be as good as my English.
You wrote: However, once they reach there, realising that their ways separate from hereon, they decide to return to their con ways.
Hereon is an antique word, a fusty word, and if that's what you intended, you used it incorrectly. It means "upon this" and might be used thus: "Hereon they divided their booty and wended their separate ways." Did you perhaps mean "here on"? If so, that's TOO colloquial. "Realising that their ways separate" -- that doesn't make sense. Exactly what "ways" do you mean? Their travel plans? Their life choices? If they are choosing to separate, then they don't "realise" anything; they decide. But if they have decided to separate, how is it that they are returning to "their con ways"? By the way, "con ways" is also not quite right. It's not good slang. Slang would be "go back on the con," I think. (I'm not the best person to consult re slang.) But that wouldn't be right in an encylopedia article. "Resume their career of crime and deception" would be more formal. Or you could say "return to their evil ways." There are many possible ways to say this, but your way isn't right.
You wrote: ... to swindle more people all over UP to save enough money to go to Mumbai.
Too long, too choppy. The rhythm is "ta-dum, ta-dum, ta-dum, ta-dum." It sounds like the nursery rhyme about the house that Jack built. Better to split into two clauses or sentences. "They roam Uttar Pradesh, committing a series of audacious swindles. Once they have saved enough money, they plan to travel to Mumbai." Or something like that. Better to write Uttar Pradesh rather than UP, as most non-Indians won't understand UP.
You wrote: my english has found an unfavourable assessment with you. That would be better phrased as: You have unfavorably assessed my English skills. Cap English, avoid passive when possible. You assess something, or you conduct an assessment OF something. "With" is the wrong preposition.
Based on my brief experience teaching English as a second language, I'd have to say that the nuances of phrasal verbs [1] are the hardest things to get right (or perhaps they're tied with insane English spelling) -- particularly as it seems to be the sort of thing the texts just expect you to get by osmosis.
You asked! I'm not trying to make you feel bad!
If you have a broadband computer connection and don't have to pay by the minute, you might enjoy proofreading at Distributed Proofreaders. You really engage with the texts, and read an incredible range of material -- from stuffy diplomatic memoirs to boys' adventure novels to manuals on concrete construction. We even have a team of Indian proofreaders.
If you just want free books, BTW, you can get thousands of free e-books at manybooks.net.
Also -- if English style isn't YET your strong point, it's probably better to start new articles, on topics that haven't yet been covered, or to work on stubs, rather than rewrite articles that are OK if not perfect. If you can do the research and organization, other people can rewrite. There are a great many older Indian movies without articles -- some of them very famous movies -- and any work you could do on those would be appreciated. Zora 09:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)