User talk:Drphilharmonic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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:

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] Copyeditor's Barnstar

Image:CopyeditorStar7.PNG 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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..." not only is 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.]

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)