User talk:Espoo/Archive 6

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy
There is a discussion going on, with three participants, if you would like to weigh in.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Canadian English
I undid your subheading change. I agree that "Phonemic incidence" is not a good heading (at least for most readers), but "Wavering between UK and U.S. usage" is not acceptable. It's not even accurate since the section says some "pronunciations are uniquely Canadian". Canadians may have a wider range of understood and accepted pronunciations, but "waver" not a good way to describe that. Would you say that American English pronunciation wavers because there are Americans who pronounce things differently? For that matter, I don't believe it is appropriate to use a header which describes Canadian pronunciation in terms of American vs UK. Canadians son't pronounce things in American or UK English. They may use the same pronunciations fo rsome words, but it is not because they are speaking American or British English.Meters (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree completely. What do you think about my new suggestion? --Espoo (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "Remarkable use of variant pronunciations" doesn't seem quite right either. "Remarkable" is not neutral, and appears to be a judgement on our part. What about simply "Variant pronunciation"? Meters (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps "Variable pronunciation" would be better? Meters (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the topic, but the quote makes it quite plain that this is a very remarkable situation, perhaps even quite unique. Even common sense tells us that there are probably not many cultures in the world where people use variant pronunciations of the same words, and even in the same sentences. And "variable" would probably sound like they're confused and just flip-flopping because they don't have a strong opinion, contrary to almost everyone else everywhere else in the world.

So "remarkable" and "variant" are probably good, but maybe we can find a better word than "remarkable". "Unique" would be great if it's true and if we can find a source for such a strong claim.

It seems quite obvious to me as a layperson that this rare or unique situation is caused by external pressure due to the US economy forcing or enticing Canadians to use more and more US terms and pronunciations despite originally speaking a more British kind of English. So Canadians try to compromise by trying not to sound too British or too American, even going to the extreme of wavering within the same sentence. So i see i'm actually coming back to seeing the sense in using the expression "wavering" but the addition should be something along the lines of "in how much American influence they are willing to accept", but that would be too long and would sound condescending towards what is in fact a remarkable and rare flexibility in adapting to outside cultural (movies, news, etc.) and economic pressure to assimilate more closely with the US and its language without giving up a sense and pride of being different and valuable. --Espoo (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The quote says nothing about this being unique, or remarkable, or rare. It just says "perhaps most characterizes Canadian speakers". Anything beyond that is WP:POV or possibly WP:SYNTHESIS. We don't insert our opinions or what we think common sense dictates. I'm restoring hte original version. I suggest that you take this to the article's talkpage for a general discussion if you want to change it. Meters (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please, either leave it at the stable version, or take it to the talkpage so we can get more input on what it should be change to, if it should be changed. Don't try out any more variations. Per WP:BRD this should be discussed on the article's talk page. Your last attempt looks good, but I want more eyes on this now. Meters (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Old Master
That you thought decapitalizing this could possibly be uncontroversial just shows you are completely un-acquainted with the subject area. Please be much more careful in future. Johnbod (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Your argument is not logical. As WP:SSF says: The specialized-style fallacy (SSF) is a set of arguments that are used in Wikipedia style and titling discussions. The faulty reasoning behind the fallacy of specialized style is that because the specialized literature on some topic is [usually] the most reliable source of detailed facts about the specialty, such as we might cite in a topical article, it must also be the most reliable source for deciding how to title or style articles about the topic and things within its scope.
 * The whole point of a manual of style is to prevent wasting time discussing the question of capitalization on each article. Professional copyeditors like me are discouraged from improving Wikipedia by endless discussions with fanboys of different topics. According to MOS:CAPS Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization, and the capitalization of "old master" is most definitely unnecessary as shown by its very widespread lowercase use, which is proven by this spelling being so much more common that the alternative is not even listed in major dictionaries. --Espoo (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Economics
Hello. Don't know if you would want to know or not, in case it is the former, I recently made this edit to the Economics page -. I don't know all the legality issues so I did it to be cautious. IANAL and don't fully know the legal situation. I discuss the edit in the discussion page as well. Actually I prefer prefixing the word social to science, but copyright lawyers abound. Minimax Regret (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:American Heritage Dictionary representation
Wikipedia:American Heritage Dictionary representation, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:American Heritage Dictionary representation and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:American Heritage Dictionary representation during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. LakeKayak (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Easily confused words listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Easily confused words. Since you had some involvement with the Easily confused words redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Colloquialism
A request was made at WP:RM/TR to revert undiscussed bold moves you made at the Colloquialism page. I performed the revert to the stable title. You are free to open up a requested move on the article talk page. For information on how to do that, you can go to WP:RM. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Your recent "uncontroversial" article renamings
You seem to have recently submitted several "technical requests" for the renaming of articles in ways that seem actually potentially controversial. I suggest being more conservative about that in the future. Specifically, I noticed your RMTRs of legal person, Nikah mut‘ah, and Nikah Misyar. For me it is hard to imagine topics more controversial than matters of personhood, religion, marriage, and sexual practices, and I thus suggest that those clearly should have gone through the formal RM discussion process rather than being submitted as "uncontroversial technical requests". —BarrelProof (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The last two were simple application of the very fundamental rule that article titles should be English. The first was a carefully researched bold move based on very reliable sources, which the person that first objected to that move has apparently now indirectly accepted after his apparent misunderstanding of the terminology problem.
 * My requests were completely in accordance with "Technical reasons may prevent a move: a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or the page may be protected from moves. See: § Requesting technical moves." As it also says on that page "If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ...". --Espoo (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I still suggest that when dealing with potentially controversial matters, it is best to use the formal RM discussion process rather than just moving things first and seeing whether anyone objects. This advice applies even when you are convinced that your renaming is a good idea and is supported by Wikipedia guidelines and policies. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree completely, but i really couldn't imagine anyone objecting to a move with the same Arabic word respelled as it is used in English in very reliable sources. I would think your suggestion applies to using a different expression that is colloquial in English and that someone might feel isn't respectful, but there is nothing even remotely similar here. --Espoo (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I'll refrain from discussing the merits of the suggestions here. That seems more appropriate to save for the RM discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

gerund
You seem to have missed my point: the three words I listed (value, issue and judgmental) are all words having unreduced vowels in unaccented syllables that ARE adjacent to accented ones, thus disproving your claim that this is a "fundamental phonetic principal of English." I am glad to see that Mr KEBAB backed me up on this. Kostaki mou (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kieskompas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dutch ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Kieskompas check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Kieskompas?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

GOCE February 2018 news
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gib (disambiguation), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bolt, Tomcat and Wedge ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Gib_%28disambiguation%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Gib_%28disambiguation%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

IPA
Hi. Thanks for adding IPA and respellings to veganism and Asperger's syndrome, but there are several of issues with your transcriptions:


 * is a checked vowel and it can't ever end stressed syllables, so that the first syllables of and  must be respelled VEJ, not VE (IPA: ).
 * is not a stressed-only vowel. In RP, it occurs in words such as Berlin, Ernesto and foreword , which actually forms a minimal pair with forward , at least when the latter isn't pronounced . Transcribing unstressed  as  is an AmE-centric transcription (AmE has a single – vowel) and so it violates WP:PRON.
 * Also per WP:PRON, we don't transcribe words that are common and/or have an intuitive pronunciation. Syndrome is one of them.

Again, thanks for the edits. I've corrected these mistakes. Mr KEBAB (talk) 11:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'm not so sure if it's apt to describe checked vowels as impossible to end a stressed syllable without qualification. It's undeniable that they are almost never found in a word-final or prevocalic position, but whether to deem a checked vowel and the following consonant as belonging to the same syllable or not is a matter of choice. Espoo might have been merely following Merriam-Webster, who usually places a syllable division between them. But in respellings, we usually attribute both to the same syllable, unless they precede stress as in tattoo . Nardog (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, that is possible. Mr KEBAB (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Use instad!
Hi Espoo, I kindly request that you use the template aforementioned instead of (without the c), as I did with Quechua. Just split up the characters (per Help:IPA/English). It standardises things on Wikipedia makes it easier for non-IPA readers to know how to pronounce (along with Thank you for considering! — oi yeah nah mate amazingJUSSO ... [ɡəˈdæɪ̯]! 10:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nomad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trader ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Nomad check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Nomad?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

August GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Civil society organization listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Civil society organization. Since you had some involvement with the Civil society organization redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. originalmess how u doin that busta rhyme? 15:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Can of worms
Hi there. Unfortunately I seem to have opened up a huge can of worms regarding those pesky World Heritage sites. I was working on Tourism in India and noticed it kept incorrectly referring to the sites as "World Heritage Site", so I just made the correction as I went along, and duly noted that the article title of World Heritage sites was correct so I was satisfied with that... I then realised that List of World Heritage Sites in India was wrongly titled so I innocently tried to move it to List of World Heritage sites in India which failed for some technical reason (trying to rename over an existing redirect maybe?) Anyway I went ahead and put in (what I thought would be) an uncontroversial technical request to rename it, thinking it was a no brainer, but alas it was contested and now looks unlikely to go ahead. Not only that, but I inadvertently reopened the naming debate on the World Heritage sites page which now looks likely to get changed back to World Heritage Sites. How very very annoying!

I'm of the same opinion as you, that the "site" should be in lower case, the main reason being that we should be following UNESCO's lead. In fact, I have written to UNESCO and the National Trust about the matter. So far I've had a reply from NT saying the correct version is "World Heritage site" but many people these days use the alternative capitalised version. I suspect that is mainly through ignorance, rather than for any more concrete/logical reason, and the fact that we are relying on n-gram graphs for our reasoning is dodgy in the extreme. I am not canvassing you for an opinion, but I just wanted to draw your attention to it, as I seem to have little support and I really have been feeling very alone in this! Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Trésor de la langue française informatisé
Hi Espoo. I have swapped Trésor de la langue française informatisé and Digitized Treasury of the French Language. The reason why you could not move over the redirect was that it had Trésor de la langue française as its target. Best, Sam Sailor 10:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks --Espoo (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Dash instead of minus sign 2.png
Thanks for uploading File:Dash instead of minus sign 2.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 17:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Dash instead of minus sign.png
Thanks for uploading File:Dash instead of minus sign.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 17:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

RMT
Hi Espoo, may I know why you have restored your request I have already completed your request -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, i only saw "Reverted to revision 877176448 by C16sh (talk)" (which i've never before seen in an edit summary on RM) and didn't notice the word "done". --Espoo (talk) 06:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Intendant
You moved Intendant. Will you clean up the operatic articles that are now wrong? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, i'm trying to fix the incredible mess caused by many completely different topics having been linked to the original article on many topics. I will start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Intendant but that doesn't seem to have opera articles. I also found many articles that used the term theater manager, often even in the title (e.g. Robert Copeland (theatre manager)), but didn't have a link to it because it wasn't an article and was instead an incorrect redirect to stage management. And even the category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Theatre_managers_and_producers didn't have an article on its topic and was professionally enough edited to not be linked to the few lines under "other uses" of the original intendant article. --Espoo (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry for all that. Unfortunately Intendant has that very specific meaning in German, with obviously no specific word in English, only theatre manager (for spoken) and opera manager. Worse: opera director, which seems to describe better what the Intendant does than manager, is a word for stage director (Regisseur in German). When I come across links I'll fix, but instead I'm getting ready for vacation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I made two redirects, Intendant (theatre) and Intendant (opera), and suggest to make Intendant a disambiguation page to the different meanings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Intendant is only used in British English. Please see what i wrote below:
 * Before you leave, could you please send me at least some examples of broken opera article links to intendant?
 * Have you seen my new article on theater manager? I have linked the German article on Intendant because it's on the exact same topic. The only difference is that the German word is less precise and also applies to opera manager and director general and other professions (see https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/allemand-anglais/Intendant/22832) I.e. the problem with links between the German and English Wikipedias is specifically that the situation is the exact opposite of what you said: Unfortunately Intendant doesn't have a specific meaning in German and applies to many different professions, each of which has a different specific term in English. ("...bezeichnet man im deutschsprachigen Raum gesamtverantwortliche Geschäftsführer und künstlerische Leiter einer öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalt, eines Festspielhauses, eines Theaters, eines Opernhauses, eines Sinfonieorchesters, eines Festivals oder einer ähnlichen Institution.")
 * Opera director is an incorrect translation of Opernintendant; correct is opera manager. The same problem is with the German term Regisseur. The ideal solution would be to have separate articles on Filmregisseur, Theaterregisseur, Opernregisseur, etc. or to have an English article called theater, opera, and film director because more and more directors switch between these genres. --Espoo (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. Do you plan to write the "different article" on opera manager? Because, so far it's only a redirect which made me combine. - a few: Westdeutscher Rundfunk, Brigitte Fassbaender, Alexander Gibson (conductor), Stadttheater Minden, Theater Münster, Theater Freiburg, Landestheater Tübingen, Schauspiel Köln, Theater des Westens, Karl Heinz Stroux (from What links here). The search for the words opera and intendant yields 264 results, but not necessarily all with a misleading link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Music director, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conductor ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Music_director check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Music_director?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

GOCE 2018 Annual Report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Teahouse
You are invited to join the discussion at Teahouse. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk   18:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

DS Alert climate change
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Mitigation vs adaptation
Mitigation means prevent it from happening. The tech definition talks about reducing emissions or enhancing sinks. The purpose of doing that is to keep it from getting any worse. UCAR puts it this way on their web page for the lay public In general, there are two different strategies when it comes to dealing with climate change. We can try to stop future warming (mitigation of climate change) or we can find ways to live in our warming world (adaptation to climate change). https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/climate-mitigation-and-adaptation

Adaptation means dealing with the changes we can not prevent.

Compare articles Climate change mitigation and Climate change adaptation.

In addition, see Climate change (disambiguation) and the hatnotes (italicized text) at the top of both articles. Currently the "climate change" article is as much about past episodes of snowball earth as it is future episoides of entirely natural super warming. Its' a generic article about climate change at any time from any cause. We deal with human-caused climate change at the article global warming. You are welcome to try to change the scope of these articles. Many have done so, including me. The status quo so far prevails. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC) PS Since you have been reverted please start a thread at the article talk page and follow WP:BRD. Other page regulars will likely tell you the same thing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Look in any dictionary. Mitigate means lessen the gravity or severity of, not prevent. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/mitigate --Espoo (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You are right in the sense that climate change is already upon us and the warming effect of past changes to earth's climate system are still forcing Earth's energy budget into a positive (warming) state.  Er go, lay media RSs talking about "warming already in the pipeline".  So sure you're right that its already on us and its going to continue before it stops warming.  So climate mitigation does mean lessen the impact in that diotionary sense.  BUT its also true that it lessnes the impact by preventing even greater external climate forcing, and it does this "WORSE-PREVENTION" by either lowering emissions or enhancing sinks.  (Geoengineering is a third prong that some want to label "mitigation" and some do not).  So while the limited dictionary works, what is more important are the topical sources.  Have you read the thousands-pages IPCC reports, or the hundreds-pages technical summaries, or the the ~30-page "Summaries for Policymakers"?    Anyway, welcome to the climate pages!  We can use all the  interested editors we can get there.  If you want to continue discussiung this article change, please do it at article talk so others can join us too.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * PS thanks for starting a thread at article talk! We cross posted.  I will leave here now, unless you want to talk any more about our interaction.  Thanks again for BRD. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

your proposed merge of Amber alert and Child abduction alert system
When proposing a merge please tag both articles, create the merger discussion, and state your rationale for the merge. See WP:MERGEINIT. I have tagged the target article and opened the discussion for you.. Meters (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

March GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Controlled-access highway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thruway ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Controlled-access_highway check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Controlled-access_highway?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Drug development, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ''Don't add primary research (the mBio source) and conjecture from a news site to this article. High-quality government or WP:MEDREV sources in peer-reviewed journals are needed. Also, don't WP:WAR; take your discussion to the talk page. '' Zefr (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please be less aggressive and more civil in your editing. For example, you didn't even respond to my edit summary that a university website report on successful in vitro and in vivo tests is definitely a reliable source. In addition, you talk about unconfirmed conjecture despite reports in this and other reliable sources of successful testing and even a Nobel prize. In addition, you call Scientific American a news site, which is a silly attempt at defamation because the term "news site" most definitely normally refers to normal news sites, not a website like SA that has much more rigorous scientific criteria and writers who know much more about science than normal news sites. In addition, most WP readers need an article such as this to be able to understand this topic. Are you seriously claiming that there is incorrect info in this article? And are you seriously claiming that the National Center for Biotechnology Information article is not reliable? In addition, you purposely use slang terms like mBio to try to discourage most editors, since most do not know medical slang terms. And calling my response to your revert edit warring is especially silly and aggressive since my revert provided a response to your claim in the edit summary as well as additional reliable sources. You clearly have not understood some of the main principles of Wikipedia. --Espoo (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Espoo. You started by adding this "newsy", primary, unproven, unconventional 4 year old source, and misinformation to a sentence that ends with a linked page, drug discovery where plant- or microorganism-derived compounds are adequately discussed. That struck me as an odd edit by an experienced editor. Then you added the "ancient remedies" statement (not remedies, but possible unproven drug leads in most cases) with a source from the Nobel site (not proof of efficacy), an opinion piece (basically, a blog) from Scientific American, and a paper on primary research (the mBio ref) providing no evidence of progress toward approved drugs - all giving more primary research and conjecture. All this in the article on Drug development, which is mainly about clinical trials and achieving results through a rigorous approval process. Sorry, but it was just a surprisingly bad edit with weak unusable sources on a clinical development page where the standards for sources and content are high. Note for the future: when an editor reverts your edit with a clear edit summary, go to the talk page, and propose it for review by others to gain consensus, WP:CON. --Zefr (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Teratology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stem ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Teratology check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Teratology?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

GOCE December 2019 Newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fuel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diesel ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Fuel check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Fuel?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Riesling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Worms ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Riesling check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Riesling?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Martin Luther King Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SCLC ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Martin_Luther_King_Jr. check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Notification regarding community-authorised general sanctions
MrClog (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Pilferage
Greetings. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and DAB pages should not veer into lengthy descriptions with references. The DAB page at Pilferage already has a link to Wiktionary at the top. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Weird Citation in one of your edits?
In this edit, you link to a NY Times article about Trump testing positive for COVID, not anything related to Mr. Woodrow Wilson. Whoops.

Nokkromancer (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * If you use your browser's search function, you can easily find the reference in the article cited. --Espoo (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's embarrassing, I skimmed it too quickly. Nokkromancer (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

"Emergency use authorization" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Emergency use authorization. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 17 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Smjg (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Gottschalk
Given that the Lafayette article lists at least three sources authored by Gottschalk, can you clarify? All the best,--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Pecorino Romano
Hallo, I reverted your edit about Pecorino Romano because at the beginning I thought that you misunderstood what is written in the source. Actually your correction was almost right: ;-) the prohibition to salt the cheese gave to the producers the kick to organize the production outside Rome, while the increasing demand pushed them to expand (not to move) the production is Sardinia. Now I think that the text is ok, and I could have corrected it without revert, sorry. Alex2006 (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

You're invited! Coronavirus in New York City: Translate-A-Thon - ONLINE - February 6th, 2021 -
--Wil540 art (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Ethnicelebs.com as a source
Hi Espoo. I noticed that you recently used ethnicelebs.com as a source for biographical information in Lara Trump. Please note that the general consensus as expressed at WP:RSN is that it does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. I've gone ahead and removed it. If you disagree, let's discuss it. You may want to check WP:RSP and WP:RSN to help determine if a source is reliable. Thanks.--Hipal (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hipal. I answered on the talk page. --Espoo (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Demetrius
 * added a link pointing to Jimmy
 * Greek name
 * added a link pointing to Jimmy

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Estonian language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Finnish.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Sibelius
I agree with most of your copy-editing there but am not sure about "throughout the world" vs. "internationally". I could imagine regions of the world that have no relation to Sibelius music, therefore would be careful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Good point about being careful to not be too Western-centric, but "internationally" would be Finglish use of that word, which is a pet peeve of mine. In fact, it would be not just bad English but arguably even more presumptuous than "throughout the world". I'm no expert but am quite sure that some of Sibelius's works are performed on all continents so that expression wouldn't be an exaggeration, but your good warning prompted me to replace it with "very many countries". Thanks. --Espoo (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I like that better. Please explain the Finglish, - English is not my native language, and I may miss something. I believe all continents, but "throughout" would tell me something like "all countries". Always learning! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe "throughout the world" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as "in every country", but that may be just my opinion. If a new idea has reached all continents, one could perhaps agree that it has traveled through the world and is now known throughout the world without yet being known in all towns or even in all countries. I however agree that wouldn't be clear and my usage was simply a first knee jerk reaction to the Finglish use of "internationally". In other words, i fixed that but didn't take into consideration how wrong and Western-centric "throughout the world" would be for many countries.
 * Performing or recording a work internationally would be something like a BBC broadcast of the queen's speech to the Commonwealth or a not necessarily simultaneous recording of Fridays for the future protests in many countries. Finns use the word international in many incorrect ways, and this article's incorrect use ("his works are regularly performed and recorded in his home country and internationally") isn't yet in the already long list on https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kansainv%C3%A4linen --Espoo (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I read things like "abroad" but am not happy with that either. About performers, you often want to say that they appeared in more than their home country. Sometimes, we can specify "in Europe and the Americas", but more often, that's too limited (or will be limited when they enter Japan, and we wouldn't notice), then what? I confess that I used "internationally" in such cases, - wrong? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * That depends on the language and content contexts. I wouldn't consider "she has appeared internationally" to be correct English, but it's comprehensible and sometimes used instead of the correct, good, and conveniently vague "abroad". Why not use "in (very) many countries, including A, B, and C"? --Espoo (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I'll rather turn to "abroad", as much shorter, for the lead, and specify countries if useful in the body. I'd avoid "very many" as somewhat duplicate. German has no equivalent to "abroad", - "auswärts" would be where a sports team plays when not at home. Feel free to copy-edit "my" articles anytime, - BWV 227 up for peer review, - that's the work of many, before and after me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "has appeared abroad" = has played only a few concerts in probably only one foreign country; has appeared in a few countries = 3 to 4; in many countries = 4 to 6; in very many countries = more than 6. So you see that "many" would be wrong for performances of Sibelius's music. We have the exact equivalent of "abroad" in German: im Ausland. --Espoo (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting counting ;) - For me, 6 would still be "a few". - For some, all that needs to be said is "remained local" vs. "was recognised internationally". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

GOCE June 2021 newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC).