Can a writer who is not a native English speaker proofread essays written in English?

You already said that, but why can't you answer the question about exactly what your connection is to this industry?

I've always admitted that I write for a living and even what essay companies I write for and my user designation honestly reflects that I'm a writer. You say you're not a writer and your user designation says "observer" but that is an outright lie if you have any association with any essay-writing company, isn't it.

Why do you lie in saying that you're just an "observer" if the truth is that you're really associated with a direct competitor of all the companies and all the freelance writers you do nothing but criticize so viciously?

Since you're "associated" with another competing essay-writing company, why should anybody believe that all your statements are truthful or in any way "objective" or that your motivation is to protect intellectual integrity in academia?

Why should anybody reading these discussions trust anything you say more than anything all of us writers and other company reps say?

What company are you "associated" with?

What diffference between Tax and Penalty? Same difference between Observer and Competitor. No?

Absolutely not: "observer" suggests that you have no reason to say anything untrue about any writer or any essay company. It's an outright lie, as is your statement that your motivation is to defend academic integrity.

So, what is that you do for an essay company and which company do you work for?

Wrong. You dismissed.

My experience is enough to judge charlatain from honest.

Stu:

Why can't you answer the question about exactly what your connection is to this industry?

I've always admitted that I write for a living and even what essay companies I write for and my user designation honestly reflects that I'm a writer. You say you're not a writer and your user designation says "observer" but that is an outright lie if you have any association with any essay-writing company, isn't it?

Why do you lie in saying that you're just an "observer" if the truth is that you're really associated with a direct competitor of all the companies and all the freelance writers you do nothing but criticize so viciously?

Since you're "associated" with another competing essay-writing company, why should anybody believe that all your statements are truthful or in any way "objective" or that your motivation is to protect intellectual integrity in academia?

Why should anybody reading these discussions trust anything you say more than anything all of us writers and other company reps say?

What company are you "associated" with?

At least I'm honest and admit to my exact role in this industry.

Why aren't you?


What is it that your experience teaches that has you so convinced you that I'm a "charlatain"?

I've admitted since Day One that I write for a living.
I've admitted since Day One what companies I write for.
I've demonstrated that I don't just attack competing writers because I've even defended the one who is my main competitor for private work when it would have been much easier and more beneficial to me to jump on the bandwagon when a thread was started by someone else claiming that I'm a much better writer than he is.

I've always been 100% honest in calling myself a "Writer" on my account.
There has never been a single complaint against me here by any customer and numerous positive comments.
Even the company owner I accused of ripping me off has since said that my work was "always excellent."

Meanwhile:

You're being very evasive about exactly what you do and for whom. Why?
Your User Designation is an outright lie because you're clearly not just an "observer" and you have a personal financial interest in saying all the things you say. Why lie?

You (admit) that you've never read my work at all, yet you regularly call me a "rewriter" and a "fraud" for saying I have a law degree and when I post information to prove my degree, you just refer to my law school pejoratively in response. Why?

You call me "uneducated" just because I'm American-educated, yet you call anybody who suggests that many ESL writers aren't sufficiently fluent in English to purposely misrepresent their ESL status to customers a "racist." Why?

So, why should anybody here believe anything you say when you won't even answer what you do for a living and what companies you do it for?

You can't just "dismiss" questions like these if you expect anybody to believe anything you say, especially about your competitors. When challenged by you and mre about my law degree, I didn't "dismiss" your challenge; I took the trouble to get my evidence scanned by someone who owns a scanner and I uploaded it here. Your friend hasn't been seen here since I told him it was now his turn to do the same in reference to his claim of having a law degree after also calling me a fraud when I was just being 100% truthful.

Why do you refuse to answer questions about your professional role and company affiliation?

Now I know that difference but will I apply it when I write the next paper? No. It will probably be a long case study paper that will take some mental effort trying to figure out what goes where. Besides, I do not see how a professor, regardless of how fussy he is will be interested in such peripheral issues. Even if he notices that the student has made such an error, he will remain concerned with the crux of the assignment such as if the correct analytical models have been used to diagnose the problem. It is easy for a discussion on the board to drift into nitpicking because there is no other way to judge one's writing abilities as opposed to the real scenarios we face where our language use is limited to how it helps in conveying our ideas. In fact most of the rubrics allocate a very small proportion of the marks to grammar while others are silent, only penalizing students if their language command limits the readability and subsequent understandably of their reports.

And on the question of proofreading (I hadn't read the title of the thread and was only responding to the posts), I am yet to see a proofreading order I cannot add value. In most of the cases, these types of orders come from ESL students who want to improve the quality of their papers. Bottom-line: the focus of criticism in academic writing (which is not a profession by the way), should be on whether one can write a coherent paper that addresses the given requirements sufficiently.

You tell half truth when it fit you and are connected to essay industry fraudsters of all time.


But you continue lie about gender and 'no knowledge' about Jason T aka WB. That discredit you for life. Beside, you 'admitted' to be writer ONLY to hope to get unsuspecting client to contact you (or you spam them). YOU here for hope of get unsuspected clients, nothing else.

They know you have connection to lawyers so one way or another you could screw them even if legitimate complaint.

I can screw you for $1000 and say you are 'excellent writer' too. Means nothin.

I have connection to industry. You reveal info about yourself coz its (as you hope) marketing for you. I dont make money on revealing info and spamming students.

What personal financial interest I have if even you dont know who I am? My skill is not in writing so its not your competition. I pull out buls*hit so to keep you on track.

You admitted that you dont do original legal case. In law school. Ask 'mre' what its all about. Beside I see how you write. Boring and repetitive. Thats enough to judge your writing skill. I can be wrong but it my opinion.

You are not as educated as you hope or as you present it. You are better then most ESL writers but I assure you there are many better ESL writers then you. Beside, again its not about writing. With weak research skill its impossible to be excellent writer.


You think they should believe YOU? After your DIRECT connection with the banned and your lies about them? Its like Joseph Goebbels say he has nothing with nazi scheme.

Your repeal case dismissed.

Yes, even with your senseless accusations, I did say your writing was excellent. I also, on several occasions said that you troll for customers. Why were your PM privilages revoked? We all know why but please enlighten new members.

Why weren't you banned along with Felix? Yes, you cried, begged and grovelled at the feet of the mods. Not the kind of behaviour one which expect from a writer who claims he has more work than he can handle and has to outsource tons.

As for your law degree, I think MRE exposed you and exposed you GOOD.

I am not and never will be on Stu's side but he showed you up this time, didn't he?

Mods, why is FW still here
1) he trolls for customers
2) his handle is his email addy - he never fails to mention aol
3) he abused your PM system
4) he took out other user names (as admin itself admitted upon the deletion of those handles) for the purpose of singing his praises as a writer

5) he is fixated on marketing 2 sites here - you know which ones.

Basically, he broke every rule in the book and he's still here? What's the logic behind this? Many of us are quite surprised and exceedingly confused.

"fingers in a hand" - About 11,400 results (0.42 seconds)- Gooogle Book search results.
"fingers on your hands" - About 8,190 results (0.33 seconds)- Google Book search results.
"Control on" - About 3,220,000 results (0.51 seconds)- Google Book search results.
"control of" - About 81,400,000 results (0.81 seconds)- Google Book search results.

each of them has [a] distinct function - my error accepted.

what colour they have = on their colour = not accepted. It depends how you mean.

their language proficiency, not "how good or bad they might be in language proficiency"]. .... This is surely not wrong. It reflects the writer's style. An example of the use of the words as I did can be found in the following:

Marton, F (2007), "The tenth year of English: review of a project concerning second language learning at university level", Higher Education Quarterly, DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2273.1947.tb02072.x,

You and your colleagues can follow these, [these what?] - This question from you means that you fail to read. Read the texts before where I have said "these". You will definitely find that you are short-sighted, which I have indicated in my previous posts.

["make" is a word that a grade-school English writer would use here; you mean contribute to: Wrong dear. You can contribute when something exists. Here a community does not exist. Writers like you here pull others legs. So, we have to first make it.

Final advice: English language does not belong to any nation or country. It is the lingua franca and has varied forms. Furthermore, the language is not the only issue in writing; it must be able to communicate concepts, particularly at Masters and above levels.


This is again a failure for you to read my posts. I have never claimed that personally I am as good as a native English person. I have been writing professionally in English for the last 30 years.

Howevever, it does not mean that all native English speakers will be able to write with the same depth and breadth as a non-native English speakers would. When we talk about writing, we do not necessarily mean only the writing proficiency, we also mean the concepts, arguments, flow, etc.

About "proofreading" I have explained in depth previously with examples. Are you claiming that non-native English writers or speakers cannot proofread? That would be very naive of you - if you say "yes".


The gross error here is that I have never claimd that anywhere that personally I can proofread; but of course I have been doing a lot of proofreading. I have said that proofreading capability is not limitted to only native-English readers or writers. The way you proofread my writing in the post shows the limited language skills that you have - I have shown by reply previously. Please check out. Also, the question of proofreading arises when only someone submits a writing for proofreading, which implies that the writers has given enough care and attention while writing and it was meant to be proofread.

Example of my proofreading:


I hope now you can see that a non-native English speaker can proofread your writing. Please fall back to us (in this forum) if you have observations on my proofreading.

You are too much, Marsvictor. I think you are more of an ignorant fool than simply an idiot, which is clearly reflected by your conscientious stupidity. FW's sentence was correct, in fact, your "proofreading" made it the way it does not make sense any more.

As much as it galls me to admit that FW is right, you, Marsvictor, leave me no choice.
Please don't tell us that you're a writer. I'm literally begging here.

"anti-ESL learner"!

I wonder, should I laugh or cry? Lol! ;(

Yes, I am too more of an ignorant fool, which is better than an "knowledggeable donkey" like you. If you understand anything of the correction that I have given, then you would have kept your mouth shut and would not have come here to show me the proofreading after I clearly have shown the error. It is only beasts which would attempt to do things by force. If you have any shame, then show me corrections on what I have explained in FW's sentences. Otherwise just keep your bloody mouth shut!


Come up with your proofreading on what I did on FW work, and if you want to beg - go and do it on the street, dude.

I really am extremely sorry, Marsvictor but, I don't speak Gibbrish. In other words, I have no idea what your trying to say here.

I am sorry as well, Mate. You need to speak and write reasonably. If you are talking about proofreading, then show me one mistake in the proofreading that I did. Just do not hit around the bush (or speak "Gibbrish" as you say). Merely giving your comments without explaining as I did does not help. It only shows how unreasonable and biased you are.

Put it this way.

The real point here, that is other than your being totally delusional, is that practically every single one of these mistakes is characteristic of ESL issues ...

Can you comprehend it now?


No, dumbphuk. He meant to say, nobody here is against "ESL learners".

FW's sentence is perfectly correct. In fact, your sentence structure and grammar are pathetically bad, or I should say completely wrong and awkward. Go learn conditional sentences.

We do not have a problem of comprehension in that sentence. It was only proofread for a superflous "that is". If you suggested an alternative, it only means the sentence which I corrected needed correction. This goes to say that non-native English speakers can proofread the writings of native English speakers. Right?


You may call me whatever. Thats your choice, cause the key board is with you. Its your liberty to call me anything. But do you agree that "nobody" is a singular noun, and the "learners" is plural. So the sentence is wrong? I am showing that I can proofread his English. If you sleep while you are awake, nobody can wake you up, right? So, don't say that he was right, and you do not understand what I write, and non-native speakers/writers cannot proofread.

I am always learning - I got no problem. But do you not know the sequence of tense - in which have had is present perfect tense and are (as has been used in that sentence) is present continuous? So, whats your point, mate?

No idiot. His sentence was correct, and I just restructured that to make you understand what was written.


Seriously, Marsvictor, are you alien to this world?


He wanted to tell us that he had problem with writers who are like you.

I told you it was not a point of comprehension, but error that he made. What a hole you are? You want to make me understand what he wrote to me - but you do not understand that:

If you suggested an alternative to his writing, it only means the sentence which I corrected needed correction. And this goes to say that non-native English speakers can proofread the writings of native English speakers?

You can't. You cannot even write.


Take logic course. I am sure you never did.


I am to trust FW's "opinions".

The point is not about what the uck you think he wanted to tell me, but about what the uck he wrote and whether or not non-native English speakers like me proofread. Come to the point - why are you moving to and fro - off the point? Have the courage to learn from his mistake. And do accept that he was wrong, and non-natives can proofread.


Of course, you will trust. Trust is sometimes blind. A fool like you, who does have no knowledge on/about grammar would rely on trust instead of showing it structurally as I did. If you are any worth of anything - c'on show me how I am wrong. If you cannot then just go away and sleep. If you have shame, you will never come up here to write again, at least againt me.

You are such an idiot, Marsvictor.

See, I can restructure this sentence, like, "Marsvictor, you are such an idiot."

Was my first sentence wrong, or did it need correction?

If I understood Gibbrish, I would have responded. Unfortunately, Martian, I neither speak Gibberish or whatever language spoken on Mars.

You are a super idiot, mate. Here I am not saying that your writing is wrong. We were saying that the person whose writing I proofread, was wrong. God help - you are such a poor reader! What the hell you are talking about so long?

What do you think I am doing? I am "showing" you that you are wrong.


He was right, and



Huh?

If you truly feel so, then stay away from MarsVictor. If you do not understand someone's language, you need to acknowldge first that you do not know that language. There is no shy to learn. Anyone who does not understand my proofreading here is surely not educated to write for students.

Now this is something true and same as believing we cannot write in a monkey's language and that no student will want papers written in a language other than what humans speak and understand.

If you have courage, go back to the proofreading that I did. See my example how I replied to the proofreading which was done on my writing. I have explained, and given example. Do something in that line. Be logical, academic, professional, and show my mistakes. I will accept if I have any error in my proofreading.

Do not be abusive, forceful (like beasts without logic and reason), do not be emotional. Only then our discussion can lead to something conclusive and educative. But you are not doing this. You are simply supporting the FW and opposing me without explaining.

If you cannot do this, then stay away - you are not qualified to comment on proofreading. The fact that you do not "think" I am correct does not matter to me as long as I am grammartically correct and as long as I have been doing proofreading for the last 30 years of my life. I even have publications. English is not my native language, but I am 47 and I have been not only studying and writing in English medium for the last 33 years, but have also been teaching people in English medium in addition to doing research - not only in Business Studies - but also in Enlish Literature and Linguistics. Do its better not to teach a grandpa how to --ck!

I am losing my courage as well hopes to make you understand.


I have corrected and explained every mistake of yours in the post you previously referred to.


How can you be that? Lol! A person cannot be grammatical.


I am sure you are familiar with fug only. And I am not teaching "grandpa" but an old retired alien who is going to be expired soon I hope.

Give it up Amnateeb. The Martian is a lost cause.

Have to run. Feel like throwing up because, at the end of the day, I'm actually defending FW. I think I'm also breaking out in hives.

ROFLMAO! Absolutely correct.

:)

I do not believe that a non-native English speaker who is an ESL learner with only a basic knowledge of the English language can successfully edit or proofread an English paper. There are just too many English language discrepancies for an ESL to be able to accomplish such a task. The first problem, is that the ESL writers tend to transliterate their words from the vernacular to English. That means the sentence might make sense in their native tongue, but would sound like gibberish when they cobble together the few English words that they think will fit the translation. As such, there is no way they can successfully proofread an English essay. They won't know how to make heads or tails of what they are reading. The result will just be a mangled mess. Now, if we are talking about an ESL writer with native English speaking skills then that person could quite possibly proofread an English paper. English is practically his lingua franca in this case so he will not struggle with proofreading the material provided.

Generally, no; but there are exceptions. I've mentioned this before, but my primary writing influences were my late father (German-Jewish Holocaust refugee who taught nuclear physics) and my 10th Grade English teacher who was Chinese. Both of them were expert grammarians with incredible understanding of the evolution of English as a language and, obviously, extensive vocabularies. However, they were, by far, extreme exceptions to the rule. I know one or two ESL writers I'd trust to write projects, but I suspect both of them know better than to offer to proofread ENL writing.

It is not advisable to use an ESL writer when it comes to proofreading English essays. The way an ESL writer thinks and writes in English is very different from the way an ENL writer goes about developing his paper. What will pass as correct with an ESL may fail to pass with an ENL. If you want to get an ENL grade for your paper, go with the safer choice. Use an ENL to proof read your paper. In the process, you may even end up improving your own ESL writing skills.

While nothing beats the abilities of a human proofreader in the native language that the essay was written in, there are also several apps and websites that can help a student proof read his essay, without any additional cost. Grammarly is the first site/app that comes to my mind. Then of course, there are the AI proofreaders that students enjoy using, but leave the essay worse off than when it started after its automated proofreading. A non native English speaker would even do a better job at proofreading than the AI.

In my opinion, proofreading, is actually something that AI should be able to do quite well, because, when the term is used and understood correctly for what it actually is, proofreading consists mainly of checking spelling, tense, and punctuation. However, most people, (especially clients in this industry) misuse the term, because what they really mean is line editing and even substantive content editing and reorganization, which isn't "proofreading," at all. I don't think AI is even necessary just for proofreading, because just about any standard grammar scanner should be able to do that without a problem.