User talk:Gramorak

Hi, thanks for joining.--Bob M 11:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again. If you're looking for some tips on wikis then Teflpedia:Newcomer's guide is a good place to look.  You might also want to write something about yourself on your userpage at  User:Gramorak - it's not required, but most people do. --Bob M 10:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll have a look at the tips soon, and have written a few words on my userpage. gramorak 19:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Great to have you around. Feel free to link to your other websites from here.  As long as they are related to English in some way it won't be a problem.
 * Now here is a wiki talk page editing tip. In order to indent your comment one more space than the previous editor you need to put one more colon than the previous editor. Cheers.--Bob M 19:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I rather fear that it won't be long before you wonder if any small value I may have to offer in ideas is outweighed by the necessity to compensate for my weaknesses in understanding wiki techniques and my proof-reading incompetence. Still.so long as you are prepared to put up with me, I'll do what I can.
 * I'm delighted you are on board. From what I've seen of your edits we share a similar view of grammar; it good to have someone with so much real-world teaching experience and it's unlikely that there is a single editor in the world more capable of introducing tyops into texts then me. So stick around.  Learning wikis is fun.  Any problems just ask. --Bob M 21:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * - 'a similar view of grammar'. Yes - a common-sense view of grammar, IMO. I was getting there myself, but R A Close and Michael Lewis gave me a hefty shove. You'll already have noticed that my contributions focus more on grammar than on teaching as such. This is partly because, despite having worked as a trainer, I hesitate to say too much publicly about methodology. What works for me may fail dismally for you, and vice versa. My focus on grammar stems mainly, however, from a firm belief that "it is essential for teachers to have a clear understanding of the central structures of the language they are teaching". Well put, Michael Lewis. Like ML, "I do not, however, believe that explanation has anything other than a very small part to play in the normal school classroom" --gramorak 08:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm a big Michael Lewis fan myself.--Bob M 11:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Greetings and welcome
Greetings Gramorak. Good to have you on bored bawd board - look forward to crossing s words with you. Regs., --Technopat 23:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see you've tidied up a couple of my things already. All such assistance gratefully received - I just hope I don't keep you too busy. --gramorak 08:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Greetings again, Gramorak. While I refuse to let myself be dazzled overwhelmed by your input to date, may I respectfully ask you to ease up just a wee bit. My original intention had been to doggedly stalk you, giving it the odd tweak here and there, but practical politics renders that one a non-starter. Come summer, once my other, income-related duties slacken I should be able to catch up on the backlog as of even date, but if you keep adding to it of your plenty... On the other hand, reading through some of the stuff you've posted on the Talk pages, prior to adding it to the actual Article page, it occurs to me that maybe we could divide each Article into two sections: the first consisting of a Quick reference section - a sort of simplified summary of the subject matter, and the second, a sort of Further reading/In-depth analysis section for the folks out there who get their kicks out of same - there must be such folks, after all: if nothing else, you're the living proof :) I thought I'd broach it with you first, before approaching Our Great Leader or the general public over at the Teachers' room, 'cos most, if not all the input will be coming from you anyway. Keep up the great work (but slow down just tad)! Regs., --Technopat 22:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your tweaking. Now, to your message:  1. Point taken. I will ease up forthwith. This will perhaps encourage me to do some tweaking and tidying myself, rather than just spew out material and leave others to do the donkey work.  2. I like your idea of a quick reference section + in-depth section. I often worry that I put too much into some of my stuff, but also worry about not covering important points. Yours is a good solution.   3. I appreciate your mentioning it to me first, but don't worry too much about offending me by making changes or suggestions. I am keen on sharing ideas about TEFL/grammar, but hopeless at doing so effectively. You are clearly thinking/acting in a most un-vandal-like way, so just go ahead.  Best wishes--gramorak 08:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that you need to ease up - after all the "heavy lifting" on the wiki is the generation of text. I like the idea of a potted summary though. At the moment the articles launch pretty directly into detail.  I've wanted to write something on distancing and such like myself but I've never really had the time - or perhaps the nerve as it's not universally accepted.  Though personally find it most persuasive.--Bob M 11:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wanted pages
Far be it for me to, etc. but I thought you might be interested in checking out this page on th eoff-chance that there might be summat in there you consider crucial. If not, not to worry - someone's sure to get round to it one day... Regs., --Technopat 13:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Now you are tempting me! as far as tidying up is concerned, I am the world's greatest procrastinator. I'll have a look at those over the next few weeks, and attempt to write SHORT articles just to start off those I know something about. Best wishes, --gramorak 18:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Trial run
Greetings Gramorak. This is more or less what I had in mind: Direct Method. Does it click? If not, no sweat. We revert and try summat else. Cheers! --Technopat 21:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Technopat. Your version is much better. Thanks. I am afraid that I have done very little here recently, and I am just off on holiday again. I will be back in a couple of weeks and try to put in some more time. I shall certainly use your revision as a model. Those who just want a quick answer have it, and it's very easy for those who want more to read on. --gramorak 07:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it - makes it harder for Our Great Leader to reject it out-of-hand :) Enjoy the hols! --Technopat 10:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)