User talk:Knotwork

-- billinghurst (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Maybe this might be the best corner of wikiverse for me, since my main activity and expertise seems to be in trivial typo fixing, whereas on the the en wikipedia where I got in trouble was when I ventured beyond that. Here, venturing beyond that doesn't seem to be much of a need or likelihood, thus the idea maybe this might be my best fit. :)

Knotwork (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This is proofreading and text correction central, so have we got a deal for yoooooooouuuu! As a place to start, you may be interested in the Proofread of the Month or a favourite author, or a favourite subject. Something for everyone with time to volunteer. We also can bring in a text from Archive.org, and add it to our library, and you can start your own proofread, etc. So have a look around, pull up a comfy chair, and welcome again. :-)

billinghurst (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

So far my main interests seem to have been in areas where physics, consciousness and information meet, and a bunch of weird math that sometimes gets involved in that. (Trying to grasp category theory and so on.) I haven't seen much of great interest in the physics category but as you mentioned archive.org I'll try to find things of interest there. I haven't noticed here some stuff I have read in hardcopy that I think it over 70 years old by now, such as Heisenberg on uncertainty and some more of Einstein on relativity...

Knotwork (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As I do seem to mostly choose documents that tend to contain math formulae, and on the whole my proofreading tends to seem very detail-oriented and complete, it might be worthwhile to make it clear that in general I make absolutely no attempt to verify formulae, in fact much of the time my understanding of them is limited to what is said about them in the text. I tend to skip the formulae, trusting that the text will tell me whatever it is that they supposedly convey. Thus no matter how complete and accurate my proofreading of a document seems to be, the formulae may well remain completely full of typological and or typographic errors - I would quite likely not even notice such errors -I basically do not even attempt to look for them.

Knotwork (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Last month's PoTM
Index:Popular Science Monthly Volume 86.djvu -- billinghurst (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Electromagnetic phenomena
Thank you for your edits in Electromagnetic phenomena, which are mostly correct. However, those grammatical errors you pointed on the Talk page for sections 5 and 7, actually appeared in the original paper of Lorentz - who was no native English speaker. So those passages should remain unchanged in the article. Also the word "deflexion" was used by Lorentz. --D.H (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2009 (UTCt

Thanks! Maybe you can clarify for me a point which my original check of edit help prior to doing any edits failed to pin down for me: is our objective to only fix any typos that did not appear in some specific edition/hardcopy that was scanned? That is, is the reproduction of the typo{|e}s of a/the scanned document our objective? Knotwork (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking up the reference (number 11) Lorentz gave for the word deflexions seems to indicate that he took it from the referenced paper, so if it is an error it looks like it wasn't his error. :) Knotwork (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)