User talk:EtymAesthete

August 2013
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Mirtazapine has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Mirtazapine was changed by EtymAesthete (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.979547 on 2013-08-01T12:45:42+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Boeing 727
Hi. "Engined" is a perfectly good adjective, meaning "having engines". It is not "nonsensical". "... both of which being closer" is ungrammatical and the original "are" is correct. Please stop introducing grammatical errors to the article. Dricherby (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If a plane has undergone the action of being fitted with an engine then it can be considered engined, but it is the action of being fitted with an engine that we are calling attention to. If we are calling attention to the plane's having 2 engines then it is a 2-engine plane; there is no reference to a previous action.
 * The phrase both of which being closer in the article makes the phrase a modifying subordinate clause.
 * Stop regurgitating what you were incorrectly taught by your uneducated third-grade teacher and learn language through linguistics, etymology and, therefore, proper grammar and syntax.EtymAesthete (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * From the Oxford English Dictionary: "engined, adj.: As the second element in parasynthetic compounds. 1. Now chiefly of an aeroplane: having the specified number of engines." It gives a range of examples of usage, such as "The four-engined ski-shod C-130 landed the next afternoon right on schedule" and "The use of the eight-engined B-52 bombers". Similarly, one would talk about a "one-armed man", not a "one-arm man". Dricherby (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hydrocodone/paracetamol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conjugates (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) 09:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC) '''

Capitalisation after ':'.
Bold text'''

Colons and other things
Hi, it is not normal to have the first word after a ':' in capitals, so I was wondering why you have made changes to this effect in Transient receptor potential channel   and to "Gram-negative bacteria have three layers: The innermost layer is..." in Trimeric autotransporter adhesin? This is not usual. Also, the words "towards" and "amongst" are aceptable in UK English and in fact "towards" is more usual than "toward".

thanks WeigelaPen (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, WeigelaPen. It is not customary to capitalize the first letter of the first word of a phrase following a colon, as in the example The drug exhibits the following side-effects: drowsiness, loss of appetite.  But, if the colon is followed by a sentence, as in the example that you cite, it is customary to capitalize the first letter of the first word.EtymAesthete (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's more usual in American usage rather than British. There is no need to change English dialects willy-nilly. Graham 87 06:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Willy-nilly"? How literary.EtymAesthete (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Fluff
Hi, Etym. Forgive my blunt heading: as a general rule, language is better styled by choosing shorter rather than longer] alternatives. All three of these wordings replace neat versions with wordy versions, and any copy-editor would revert them. If you wish, you could try out a few of my redundancy exercises to get the hang of this. Thanks for your work.

User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a:_redundancy_exercises Tony   (talk)  06:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * An illiterate copy-editor would revert them.EtymAesthete (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Consequently
How does "As a consequence" differ in meaning from "Consequently"? Tony  (talk)  10:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If there is insistence on the word consequent then the correct and more meaningful introduction to the sentence would be Consequent to this,... as a possible equivalent in meaning to As a consequence,...


 * What we are trying to convey in the article is DD-transpeptidase cannot catalyze formation of these cross-links as a consequence of the binding... or DD-transpeptidase cannot catalyze formation of these cross-links consequent to the binding... Nothing happened in a consequent manner.  In other words, She thankfully accepted her award is equivalent in meaning to She accepted in a thankful manner her award.


 * The problem with the inane practice-gone-rampant of tacking on an ly to anything that does not move and the concomitant arrogant presumption of the speaker/writer that the audience should understand what is meant is that some speakers/writers would use the same statement to convey the meaning We are thankful that [or Who-knows-who is thankful that] she accepted her award, as in Thankfully, she accepted her award. So, now, as a result of wanton abuse of language, She thankfully accepted her award has no clear meaning to a solitary audience-member.


 * This is where nonsensical terms like Consequently, Unfortunately, Sadly, More importantly, Obviously, (and even, can you believe) Firstly, and the like are a problem, for they serve to dilute the meaning of the specific term, and therefore dilute the meaning of the statement, and therefore dilute language as a whole. Colloquialisms are one thing, but that one as a so-called scholar or academic employ the ridiculous technique of constructing nonsensical terms is sloppy, to say the least, expecting in a lazy manner that Well, they know what I mean, anyway.


 * So, what is the actual meaning of the statement The beta-lactam ring was apparently degraded by the enzyme? We cannot be sure what apparently - or even the whole statement - means in this context.  Did the enzyme degrade in an apparent [or obvious] manner [right before our eyes] the beta-lactam ring?  Or did the speaker/writer mean It is apparent [now] that the enzyme was successful [at a time in the past] in degrading the beta-lactam ring?


 * All we need is one imbecile journalist in a media outlet to start saying Resultantly, the beta-lactam ring was degraded in place of As a result, the beta-lactam ring was degraded, and tens of millions of English-speaking robots will mimic the syntax in parrot-like fashion.


 * If you had said something to me but I did not hear you, I could reply with "Huh?" You would, in turn, know what I mean.  But that I choose, instead, to say Pardon me.  Would you please repeat what you just said to me? is not employing verbose or superfluous language.  Word-counting has no place in proper conveyance of meaning using proper language, especially considering that we have in our artillery the most powerful communication-tool with the largest lexicon of any language in recorded human history - the English language.  And true scholars should endeavor to use the power of this communication-tool to eliminate not intensify ambiguity.


 * What is so abhorrent about our using words to convey the precise meaning of our ideas? EtymAesthete (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're new to Wikipedia. Please don't use insulting words to describe people who disagree with you or write in certain ways. You can get your point across better by using less emotive language. Are you sure you want to parade She accepted in a thankful manner her award as good style? Perhaps "She accepted the award thankfully" (i.e. without a comma) might do the trick. My complaint about "As a consequence" is that it brings no new or more precise meaning than "Consequently" in that context, and one word is better than three if there's no disadvantage in the shorter form. I don't agree that word counting has no role in style. "Consequently" doesn't seem to suffer from the ambiguity of "Hopefully, ..." etc. So why not use it? I still want to know where the ambiguity lies (without being shouted at). Tony   (talk)  08:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * PS where we are going to lock horns is in your capping of the first letter after colons, which might be acceptable in some house styles for titles, but is not normal in WP's main text. Please don't continue to change article text according to this personal preference unless you find consensus for it. See WP:MOS.  Tony   (talk)  08:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * PPS Looking further, most of your copy-editing is excellent. Tony   (talk)  08:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Your edit at User talk:DMacks
Do you really want to claim that accusing another editor of a "deviant and despicable act" for bringing the lead of an article in line with the article title is not a personal attack? I would strongly suggest you revert yourself over there. There are ways to discuss the proper wording of a term, but this clearly is not one of them. If you think the "Environmentally friendly" article should be renamed "Environment-friendly", try WP:Requested moves - though I dare predict that, given the fact that the current title is in far wider use, it will not be renamed, no matter that the other title seems more logical - language simply isn't logical all the time. Huon (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I prefer not to have to deal with this minutia, but the evidence speaks for itself: It is not the editor's "bringing the lead of an article in line with the article title" at all, as you are so sloppily trying to pretend it to be. It is the editor's having sneakily eradicated the original lead of the article in order to force his/her illogical argument that is reprehensible, and brazenly after making reference to the very page on another page.  I would strongly suggest your educating yourself not only on etymology and language usage but also on the series of events that occurred here, and stop defending one that is capable of such a deviant and despicable act. EtymAesthete (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Etym, our demeanour comes out sharper than we intend when it's onwiki. Can you step back and soften? It won't make your argument(s) less effective—probably more. In particular, please avoid the appearance of lecturing other editors, even if you feel they need to be told something. Tony   (talk)  00:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/EtymAesthete. Thank you. --DAJF (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Because true academics with knowledge of language history, philology, and etymology agree and support each other's stance on issues of language history, philology, and etymology against cry-babies and their kindergarten mentalities and social skills, they must be employing sock-puppetry. After astute explanations offered in the respective Edit Summaries by this editor and another editor on the Wasabi article, DAJF retaliates with the inappropriate kindergarten-like behavior and mentality represented by (in an Edit Summary?): someone needs to [sic] learn the difference between "which" and "that" as [sic] they are not interchangeable, complete with dangling phrase with improper punctuation, deficient knowledge of the difference between should and needs to, and brazen attention drawn to complete absence of knowledge of which and that exemplified by his edits, all in one Edit Summary!  It is "editors" like this that the mere mention of "Wikipedia" so often elicits from the public and media derision and even scorn.EtymAesthete (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)