User talk:Espoo/Archive 4

GOCE drive news
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 20:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC).

GOCE January Backlog elimination drive conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 15:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

WP:RS
Hi, Please read WP:RS again and there is no need for an edit war on Good Friday. I added a fact tag to the 2nd item, it has no source at all. And Yahoo.com is not WP:RS, neither is that fellow's personal web site. No need for an edit war here. History2007 (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hope you're happy with the explanation in the edit summary showing you had wrong ideas about both sites. One's simply hosting a very reliable source and the other is quoting from very reliable sources. --Espoo (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is amazing, such a trivial issue, such a useless debate. I will seek a 3O anyway. And please consider this an "edit war warning", given that it should really be discussed on the talk page, not reverted. History2007 (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. You thought the American Heritage Dictionary quote was a Yahoo creation. I pointed out it's the real thing. Do you agree American Heritage is a reliable source? --Espoo (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In printed form, absolutely. On Yahoo, who knows.... History2007 (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You can be 100% sure it's the original text because it says "Provided by Houghton Mifflin" at the bottom, and the publisher of AH would not let Yahoo change even a comma... --Espoo (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That is speculation and this discussion is an amazing waste of time. A trivial point now that you added OED. History2007 (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization of Sacred Harp
Hello Espoo,

Look, book titles are normally capitalized; you'll find this in almost any style manual. Also, if you read the published books about Sacred Harp, you'll also see that it's standard practice for scholarly work in this area. Lastly, please discuss an edit this extreme on an appropriate Talk page, to obtain consensus, before launching in on it. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Espoo, I must agree with Opus33 and ask you to stop revising the articles on Sacred Harp singing and Sacred Harp music. While you may have copyedited numerous articles, I ask you to defer to the consensus of literature on this subject. Sacred Harp singing is singing from the Sacred Harp songbook, a book whose title is The Sacred Harp. The single source you cite for your eccentric style at http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/xbsdd is from the Texas State Historical Association, and can hardly stand against the great body of authoritative works on the subject. Finn Froding (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * MOS says to avoid unnecessary capitalisation. Before changing an uppercase article title that is not a proper noun to a lowercase title, i nevertheless first check if any reliable sources are provided in the article and see what they do. The Texas State Historical Association is exactly the kind of objective, nearly encyclopedic source whose spelling usage we should be following. Even if most aficionado sites and books use uppercase, we should use lowercase according to MOS if at least some reliable sources do so too - even if some or many scholarly books use uppercase.
 * And just because sacred harp music got its name from a book with the title "Sacred Harp" does not at all mean we should uppercase the music.
 * Do you know who is behind the website http://www.folklib.net/folkfile/s.shtml#sacred_harp ?
 * In any case, i hope both of you agree we should at least move Sacred Harp to Sacred Harp music because the current title is very unprofessional, unencyclopedic and downright confusing, misleading, and fanboyish. If the article had been at Sacred Harp music, i would have discussed the move and the ones it made necessary before carrying them out.
 * According to http://fasola.org/ the article name should be changed to shape note singing or merged with shape note: Technically, our style of singing is “shape note singing” because the musical notation uses note heads in 4 distinct shapes to aid in sight-reading, but it is often called “Sacred Harp” singing because the books that most singers use today are called “The Sacred Harp,” with the most prominent of these being the 1991 Denson edition. --Espoo (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (and Grove Online) has subject entry "Sacred Harp singing", and this is the usual term and spelling in such references as Cobb, The Sacred Harp: A Tradition and Its Music, Steel & Hulan, The Makers of the Sacred Harp, Bealle, Public Worship, Private Faith: Sacred Harp and American Folksong, Miller, Traveling Home: Sacred Harp Singing and American Pluralism, and G.P. Jackson, The Story of the Sacred Harp, 1844-1944, comprising much of the recent scholarly literature on the subject and all published by high-quality university presses employing professional copyeditors.
 * While the Texas article uses your style, the New Georgia Encyclopedia http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-549 refers to "Sacred Harp singing" and "Sacred Harp singers", as does the State Library and Archives of Florida at http://www.floridamemory.com/OnlineClassroom/sacred_harp/photos.cfm and the Mississippi Arts Commission at http://www.arts.state.ms.us/crossroads/music/music4.html.
 * The resource at http://www.folklib.net/folkfile/ is clearly by Toronto folk music enthusiast Bill Markwith, dated 1997, as claimed in the resource itself.
 * I would not agree that the title should be changed to "Sacred Harp music" since there is no such thing--nothing that distinguishes Sacred Harp songs as a whole from those in other books. A better term would be "Sacred Harp singing" which denotes a tradition of singing, and distinguishes it from other forms of singing and from the use of other songbooks.
 * What fasola.org says is "The best way to learn about Sacred Harp singing [sic] is to sing it yourself by attending annual or local singings." Note the capitalisation. I understand and agree with WP:MOS on the principle of restraint in the use of the upper case.  I ask you to understand the conventions within this field and acknowledge that procrustean applications of general rules may not be appropriate in all cases, and that those who have been editing these pages have been following the best practices of scholarship in this area. Finn Froding (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You misunderstood what i said. I was trying to show that my change was not idiosyncratic or Procrustean but based on the best sources. The problem was that i found mostly aficionado sites in the article's online sources and that the only online source i found in the article's references that looked like the kind of serious, encyclopedic source whose spelling usage we should be following was the Texas State Historical Association. I did not notice the New Georgia link. Please add the New Grove!
 * We should definitely move the article to Sacred Harp singing in following the usage in the best sources, including those you just cited. The current title Sacred Harp is very unprofessional, unencyclopedic and downright confusing, misleading, and fanboyish.
 * In addition, we should consider moving it to shape-note singing or fasola singing because these are called synonyms by the New Georgia Encyclopedia and because they are less confusing and misleading than "Sacred Harp singing". You have to remember that this topic is linked to from other articles, and their readers would get a wrong idea and would be confused by Sacred Harp singing unless they click on the link and read the lede, which most will not do. But "Sacred Harp singing" is definitely a much better title than what we have now. --Espoo (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Espoo. I think you are somewhat confused.  Web sites are virtually never the "best sources" when there exists a scholarly literature, peer reviewed and published by academic presses.  The works of Jackson, Cobb, Beale, and Steel, cited above by Finn Froding, are references of this type and should serve as the primary source for Sacred Harp editing, including the question of what to name the field and how to capitalize it.  I have read these books from cover to cover, and I would not be surprised if Finn Froding has as well.  Have you?  If not, I suggest you come back with your suggestions after you have done so.  The same goes for any topic on the Wikipedia -- editing should come after reading and study.  For more on this question, please consult WP:VER.  Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you're confused. The reliable sources Finn Froding cited use "Sacred Harp singing", not "Sacred Harp" alone, which is very unprofessional, unencyclopedic and downright confusing, misleading, and fanboyish. This article doesn't either seem to ever use "Sacred Harp" alone to mean "Sacred Harp singing", in contradistinction to some of the aficionado sites. "Sacred Harp" used alone is the name of the book, as you know, so i can see no reason why you would want to object to my proposal to move the article to Sacred Harp singing, and none of you have provided any reason.

I never said that online sources were the best sources. I simply pointed out that i used the best of the online sources provided by the article to decide how to fix the simply impossible current title "Sacred Harp". Apparently i should have added that of course i and most other readers do not have any except online sources (specialised in this topic) at our disposal when we first stumble across an article that needs copyediting. Your exhortation to go to the library before i start editing a WP article shows that you're profoundly confused about the basic pillars of WP.

Of course online sources can and should be used, one just has to make sure they're reliable. As you know, lots of junk is published on paper too; it just doesn't usually end up in the library, and it doesn't have a reputable publisher. Checking whether a website is reputable is exactly the same thing as checking whether the publisher of a book is reputable. In addition, since the quote from New Grove supports my proposal, your exhortation to read WP:VER is actually quite tragicomic. Looks like you've caught the disease described at WP:OWNERSHIP, which will also help clear up your confusion about what WP is. --Espoo (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need an argument about who is confused or who "owns" the article. I do think we need to take this discussion to Talk:Sacred Harp, where the contributors can express their views. I think we've demonstrated that capitalisation is no longer the issue. I've expressed a willingness to consider renaming the article to "Sacred Harp singing"--this accords with the scholarly literature, and it happens to be the first three words of the existing article. There may be a downside to this that I haven't considered. But I'd like to hear from others. I intend to raise the issue on the Talk page, with a xref to the present discussion. Finn Froding (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Erich Priebke
Hi. I answered your question on my talk page Fuelbottle (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Professors' blogs etc. not reliable
I think that we have hydroxide under good control. As I think you've been told before, chemistry editors at least, do not find blogs to be acceptable sources. We like good old books and reviews. If you have suggestions for this fairly mature article, you might leave a note at the talk page. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason why blogs are not acceptable is that they are not subject to peer review, that is, the are not reliable in the the Wikipedia sense. Even if they are written by respected authors, they might contain errors or untested personal opinions. Petergans (talk) 10:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously disagreeing with what the chemistry professor and the McGraw-Hill Science & Technology Encyclopedia say? We don't need to have the blog link, but the information is very important to help readers understand this confusing naming issue. You seem to be experts, and experts often have trouble understanding the needs of normal users of WP. Since the chemistry professor feels this needs to be explained to college students, you can be sure it needs to be explained to WP users. --Espoo (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Your tag
You placed this tag without indicating what the problem was. Would you please do so? Thanks, LeadSongDog come howl!  23:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Espoo (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Capital the
Hi, I've just been reading a discussion you were involved in in 2008, to which I was referred from Talk:Paul is dead. You may like to see the changes I have made to the MoS on the subject. Then again, you may not... Regards anyway, Rothorpe (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Murder
I noticed your post on Talk:Murder and I agree with it. James500's response was not very helpful - saying things like "it's perfectly comprehensible" doesn't make it so, for example - but I am inclined to avoid commenting there right now because I have just had a similar interaction with him at another article talk page and he does not seem to respond to criticism in a helpful or constructive way. I am hoping other editors see your post and back up what you said. You can also try to make changes to the article yourself in the meantime, although be fore-warned that he may revert them automatically with the explanation that he doesn't agree or that there was "no consensus on the talk page" (meaning his own response that all your comments about the article's current state were invalid). I totally disagree with his assertion that "at common law" is a commonly-used phrase and easily understandable to the general public. I think that it may be used in UK law circles (James500 is from the UK and has an interest in law). That is not enough to warrant it being used in the article. I would suggest starting off with small edits to the article and see what happens, rather than taking the time to make detailed or major edits just to have him revert them. Let me know if you need any help or would like me to comment on the Murder talk page. I doubt that I can be of any help convincing James500, but at least it would show that you are not the only one that found the article to have issues or disagreed with his assessment.

Also, "murder" is not just a legal term and the article should reflect that.

Hopefully some other editors will comment on your post soon :-) MsBatfish (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Tablet PC
I reverted your edit at Tablet PC. Please take a look, and feel free to try something different or discuss. – Pnm (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought the explanations were incorrectly describing the same thing in two contradictory ways. What do you feel is the difference between the first two entries? --Espoo (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The architecture and operating system. "Tablet personal computers" run Windows or Linux and have similar architecture and hardware – that's why they can be classified as personal computers. On the other hand, the so-called post-PC tablets (so-called on Wikipedia at least) like the iPad are generally not classified as personal computers. (Smartphones, also, are not personal computers.) Sources use these terms fairly inconsistently, but maybe there's a better way to help readers of the disambiguation page. (Tablet computer covers both kinds of tablet.) – Pnm (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

IPA-en
Re. this, just read the source yourself. It's in the English phonology article we link to at the top of the page. (We don't need to source non-articles.) And if you were correct, the examples would be useless and should be removed altogether: the whole point of those two words is that they contrast in syllabification. — kwami (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Unreported employment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moonlighting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"see article on Baltic Sea and on Zealand"
None of the articles support your statement. Searching for reliable sources on "Largest Island in the baltic sea" produces numerous reliable sources that claim it is Gotland. I've added three of these as sources. None of the hits claim it's Zeeland (for the simple reason that it is not *in* the baltic sea). --OpenFuture (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Piquance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Smell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC
Hello, this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll here, to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band " THE BEATLES " mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. ~ GabeMc  (talk 23:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited French phonology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uvular fricative (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, very minor edit issue, not a living person's name or anything, but just seen the technical move you requested. On the face of it this "rarely" edit doesn't immediately seem to be supported by checking enabled-only English sources. Best of the Festive Season, cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A
 * B

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=557963292 your edit] to Trunks (clothing) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=569622241 your edit] to Barcode may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 1 "[]"s and  1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Halifax Explosion
This page has been moved a number of times in the past year between the two capitalizations. See Talk:Halifax Explosion which occurred last February. If you would like the capitalization changed, please open a new move discussion. It has been argued that Halifax Explosion is a proper name. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems we're going to have to add a separate section for this kind of issue to the MOS if this is not a clear case even for an admin. We cannot waste time rediscussing such clear cases for thousands of articles. Almost all articles in the category 20th-century explosions are lowercased and books published by university presses and other reputable publishers on the Halifax explosion use lowercase, eg The Halifax Explosion and the Royal Canadian Navy. --Espoo (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The last move discussion went the other way, insisting on upper case. It is paradoxical that your link spells it 'Halifax Explosion' in the publisher blurb, although we do see lower case used in the text of the book. Lower case sounds right to me, which is why the verdict of the last move discussion surprised me. It's hard to tell if consensus favors your view without having another move discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We can only be sure what the publisher wants by looking at what we're sure has actually been published. Blurbs are written by marketing people who are not professional copyeditors and blurbs don't go through the publisher's rigorous copyediting process. In addition it's quite possible that Google Books caused that mistake.
 * It's WP:NAMECAPS. 117Avenue (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a very unhelpful article because it doesn't explain what a proper name is (and most people think they know but in fact don't), so it needs to be fixed. Please look at the talk page. --Espoo (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Halifax (former city), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Benzol (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Question
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on this question I've posed? I could really use your thoughts on the matter. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Naming of Odón Device
I did an analysis of the spelling of the variant versions of the name at Talk:Odón Device. I hope you will share your thoughts and see if we can reach consensus or see if further input is needed. Alansohn (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

March GOCE copyedit drive
}}
 * }

Disambiguation link notification for February 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Graham (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anglo-French (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

GOCE March drive wrapup
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Adobe Flash
Hello, Espoo.

Counter-reverting other people without adding a considerable plausible rationale or seeking consensus is edit warring. Please take the issue to talk page and gather consensus. You will find that people here are more likely to agree with you if show a teamwork spirit.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Please read edits (especially of obvious non-experts like myself struggling to make the article less confusing for non experts) more carefully before incorrectly claiming completely different edits (which incorporated your helpful correction) are counter-reverts. In addition to my edit being a new edit, not a revert, my edit summary did in fact add a very considerable plausible rationale. BR, Espoo (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "New edit"? So, you don't remember, do you? No problem. Let's assume you are right, I am wrong and I apologize for my mistake, okay? So, you made a new edit (B), I made a new revert (R) and now we are good friends discussing (D). Shall we?


 * Your confusion is confusing to me. Please start from the beginning and tell me what confused you. When and how you saw this Shockwave Flash and what made you think it may be confused. Then, we will plan an action. I am listening.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sleeping Beauty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Folk tale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=618332056 your edit] to Calligrammes may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * De Philosophie Et D’art, October 1920], Blue Mountain Project, Princeton University

Disambiguation link notification for July 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Intellectual disability, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NHS. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

"Airway" syn. "flight path"
Dear, may I invite you to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation regarding mentioning "flight path" as a synonym for "airway" - several editors consider this incorrect. Regards, Jan olieslagers (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Old Town
Hi, I've been thinking a bit more about your requested move over the redirect and it seems to me that maybe the article should be move to "List of old towns by country" since that is what it is. Both "Old Town" and "old town" can then be redirected to the new article title. Thoughts? Cheers, Philg88 ♦talk 18:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There's a discussion on the talk page about moving the list elsewhere because the article with this title should really deal with the topic in general, as in the articles in other languages linked to this one. --Espoo (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits to Amoeba
Your edits call attention to a problem in the article. There appears to be some confusion between the informal term "amoeba" or "ameba" (loosely applied to a wide range of unicellular organisms with a roughly amoeboid cell morphology) and the formal taxon Amoeba, a genus within the family Amoebidae. As written, the article is ostensibly about the genus Amoeba, for which the taxonomic authority is Bory de St. Vincent, 1822. The genus Amoeba is always spelled the same way. Other spellings (e.g. Ameba proteus) would be simple errors, under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, article 33. As you already know, the alternate spelling "ameba" is in fairly wide use for a variety of organisms, many of which are not even Amoebozoans (e.g. the pathogen Naegleria). A Google Scholar search turns up 17,700 results for "ameba" in the published literature, compared to 76,900 for "amoeba".

I'll rewrite the article when I have time (unless someone else gets to it first!) Deuterostome (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I tried to fix this and the article erroneously called amoeboid even though that is only used as an adjective in scientific and other literature. --Espoo (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the use of "amoeboid" as a noun is fairly common among protistologists. The practise is fairly new, which is why dictionaries haven't picked up on it, but it is consistent with other usages in biology, such as "hominoid" and "ungulate" (both of which are routinely used as nouns). It is still rare in formal contexts (where we're more likely to see phrases like "amoeboid organisms"), but the word "erroneous" is too strong, I think. See, for instance: http://www.pnas.org/content/98/7/3879.short


 * The disambiguation of Amoeba from amoeboid/amoeba/ameba is necessary, but needs some refinement. For one thing, your adjectival use of "pseudopod" in the construction "pseudopod protists" is quite idiosyncratic.  "Protists with pseudopodia" would be better, although it would be best to simply avoid the suggestion that "amebas" are necessarily protistan.  As you know, amoebae (that is, amoeboid organisms) are found in every branch of the eukaryote tree, and not simply among the protists.


 * They are not a taxonomic "group" at all, so it is not really appropriate to refer to them as "polyphiletic." If someone were to erect "ameba" as a formal taxon, it would indeed by polyphiletic, but in common biological usage the word "amoeba" applies not to a "group" but to a type of cell.


 * The use of the plural "amebas" is misleading, since it reinforces the notion that "the amebas" are a group. Modern biologists do not refer to "the amebas" as a group containing Euglypha, Chaos, Naegleria, etc., although any of those organisms is rightly called an "ameba." Better to use the singular "ameba" or "amoeba" for the article name, in my opinion.  Deuterostome (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll get back to your other good points later, but am(o)eboid was and is not used as a noun in any of the sources cited in the article. And if it's a new usage, it can according to our MOS only be listed as a synonym in the first line and cannot be the lemma. --Espoo (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten the Amoeba article, removing material pertaining only to other genera. See Talk:Amoeba for details.
 * Re. disambiguation, I suggest that we follow the model used in Chaos and Chaos (genus). "Amoeba" should redirect to the disambiguation page. The current "Amoeba" article should be moved to Amoeba (genus) and the article currently called Amebas (pseudopod protists) should perhaps be moved Amoeba (amoeboid organism), or if you prefer the other spelling, Ameba (amoeboid organism).  Deuterostome (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=628060695 your edit] to Grey market may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A grey market (sometimes called a parallel market, [http://web.archive.org/web/20120311222807/http://espinosaiplaw.com/wordpress/?page_id=5 What is

Disambiguation link notification for October 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Food circle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Food pyramid. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=633368476 your edit] to Truck may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * more than 8000 kg). Any towed trailer must not weigh more than 9000 kg GVM. Also includes articulated buses and vehicles in class&amp;nbsp;MR.

Disambiguation link notification for November 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wolverine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norwegian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Curriculum vitae
Hello. What is the correct Latin pronunciation of this term? — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 22:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you answer my question? You obviously know the correct pronunciation, otherwise you wouldn't write that my transcription was "irrelevant" (I laughed at this one to be honest), "incorrect" and "pseudo-Latin". — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 19:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry i didn't answer earlier, but hopefully my edits answer ur question. --Espoo (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 19:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)