User talk:Megaman en m

Hi!

False accusations
So you falsely accused me of being censorial and hilariously wrote "wikipedia does not censor". Both are such absurd statements that it's near impossible to take either seriously. I'm not going to go back and forth with you, Moustafa already all but apologized to me and I accept that. Sure, my 30 minutes of solid work was wasted, and sure you reverted my edit that corrected verifiably false information (benzodiazepines were regularly prescibed/used starting in the 1960s *NOT* the 1970s) but it is what it is. 107.10.140.224 (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

- Your perception of [|Swedish being a tonal language] is incorrect.

Swedish/Danish/Norwegian could be classified as [|pitch accent languages].

Your repeated reversal of my edit will lead to readers becoming misinformed.

I edited my previous comment and apologize for some rude language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.151.118.107 (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Classifier constructions
You'll want to see what other pages might be improved by linking to classifier construction as few pages link to it. I added one at Classifier (linguistics) so that it's not orphaned. You may also be interested in nominating it at WP:DYKN so that it can be linked to from the main page. I haven't had time to do a thorough read through yet, but based on my skimming, it looks good! Thanks for the contribution. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Added some more links to related articles I could find. As for the DYK nomination, the process seems a bit too complicated for me. I don't even know what the hook would be, but you're free to nominate it if you want.--Megaman en m (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Classifier constructions in sign languages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphology ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Classifier_constructions_in_sign_languages check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Classifier_constructions_in_sign_languages?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) 08:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up
But a quick search on "Hopi time controversy" would have revealed that my edits were not, as you suggest, original research, but a paraphrasing of published criticisms of Malotki's original rebuttal to Whorf. Nonetheless, you are correct that I should have put in citations, and so you will note that this time I have references in my edit.Ecthelion83 (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Nice work on the GA criteria RfC
Just saw that the GACR RfC was finally closed with consensus to change the criteria. Congrats! I think it's a really important addition to the GA process, and I'm so glad you suggested it. I realize it wasn't an easy road, and the initial Village pump proposal got a bit of a frosty reception, so I applaud your tenacity in sticking with it. Please accept this ASCII barnstar for your excellent work: *  :) Colin M (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It took a bit of patience, but I'm glad it got through in the end.--Megaman en m (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Eldoret - Afrikaans
[Regarding your reversion of my edit - you asked me to comment here, on your Talk-Page] >

Surely it was enough to link to the Wikipedia page on Eldoret? - (which I did by enclosing it in double square brackets).

Would you accept the change in the "Afrikaans" article if I were to insert the https://afrikanerway.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/eldoret-a-boer-settlement/ link from the Eldoret article? --DLMcN (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you linking the article, but I'm afraid that Wikipedia isn't allowed to cite itself as a source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and is therefore not a reliable source. You can read WP:CIRC for more information. As for the wordpress source, it seems to be a blog written by non-experts without editorial oversight. Thus, it does not count as a reliable source. Wikipedia likes to use academic sources, university textbooks or mainstream news sources. Generally speaking, blogs are not allowed to act as a source. Very rare exceptions may apply when the blog is written by an established expert in their respective field and there is no other source available.--Megaman en m (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, I am not going to plunge into an edit-war on this issue. But I do remember reading about Eldoret in the 1960s, and talking about it to a Kenyan friend of mine, so I am certainly convinced that it really was an Afrikaans 'bastion'... Obviously, my brain-cells cannot be regarded as a "reliable resource" in a Wikipedia context. On a personal level, though, I do trust my memory, so I conducted an Internet search and came up with the following links:


 * https://www.businessdailyafrica.com/lifestyle/society/Eldoret-the-town-that-South-African-Boers-started-/3405664-1323654-7f6ldnz/index.html


 * https://www.shadowsofafrica.com/eldoret-kenya


 * https://www.reddit.com/r/southafrica/comments/4jpa5p/afrikaners_in_kenya/ > Reply by skoppensboer


 * to which we might add:
 * https://fly.jambojet.com/en-us/plan-your-trip/destinations/eldoret/


 * If none of those^ commentaries meet with your approval, then I am content not to pursue the matter further. It was, however, raised by a questioner in item 3 of the "Afrikaans Talk-file", so it would be appropriate, presumably, to copy this entire exchange into that location... With regards, --DLMcN (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, you should now go into and modify the Wikipedia "Eldoret" article? --DLMcN (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Out of those four sources, the businessdailyafrica one is the most reliable, you're free to cite information given in that article. Shadowsofafrica and jambojet are commercial travel advisor sites, not something that can be used as a reliable source. Reddit hosts user-generated content, which Wikipedia specifically does not allow to be cited. I also went ahead and edited the Eldoret article.--Megaman en m (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019
Hello Megaman en m, following part of my message is factual and doesn't have any opinion but I see you have removed it. I'm okay with removal of one sentence that you had given as example in your message to me but after going through neutral point of view I find following information is neutral and explaining the facts and this doesn't have any opinion. The information is explaining what language and what books he wrote initially and later.

"Initially he had written few books in English simplifying many concepts in computer systems and networks. Later he started to write in Marathi to explain the complex concepts in many subjects in simpler words. He has written 29 books in Marathi. His books have gained popularity because of his style of writing. His books are not literary art but they are attempts to give insights of different topics to a common man. His biography Musafir and his book explaining the economic evolution Arthat has influenced life of many people in Maharashtra and Marathi readers. He is an expert in Mathematics and has topped or scored 100% in all of his exams in his high school. His interests are music, literature, economics, science, management psychology, and information technology, and he has written books in these topics."

Could you please restore it? Akshayhiremath20 (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

There are still minor problems with the writing style, but the biggest problem now is that this is unsourced. If you got this information from a reliable source, please add it. If you wrote this text using your own knowledge, then please know that Wikipedia does not allow original research like this. Even if you know something to be true, you still need a reliable source. If you don't know how to add sources on Wikipedia, here is a guide to help you.--Megaman en m (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.
Thank you for fixing the page: Second language. 75.129.106.181 (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Strictness of citations and fast reversions
Is there any strictness re citations for some details added at Predicative expression so it couldn't wait a few hours? Please use the talk:predicative expression to add your reply there.--185.53.197.61 (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I've been here for over twelve years.
Don't template the regulars. HalfShadow 00:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

"Depictive construction" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Depictive construction. Since you had some involvement with the Depictive construction redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 06:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Danish expressions
I just wish to say that the expressions exemplified are easy to find in writing. The reason for that contribution was a SPAM from a Danish hotel, with the headlin "Du har skudt papegøjen!" (and how lucky I was to to get a cheap hotel room). Any similar expressions don't exist in my native language, Swedish. They are not of the kind that British tabloids might use. The day after visited Highbury in 1996, I think it was the Sun that wrote "Toooonill to the Arsenal" (and I have seen far more twisted headlines, I just happen to remember this one) - but the examples I used are not invented by newspaper, and indeed very common. I've never encountered any similar expressions in Swedish, English or German (though my German grammar is very poor, but I can manage to read it). Any further thoughts, or I can't persuade you to change your mind, on the encyclopedic value of such expressions in the Danish language ? Cheers ! Boeing720 (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Such content would fit better in a phrasebook. GA/FA Wikipedia articles on languages don't have separate sections on basic phrases, let alone "funny" phrases. Sometimes they will include a paragraph with a translation, but that's about it.--Megaman en m (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Open Science Topic
Hello,

Many thanks for working on the Open Science topic. I think you're right and there should also be something written about the outcome of the investigation. I thought the report might be interesting.

My suggestion would be:

"A scientific paper from November 2019 examined the suitability of blockchain technology to support open science. In detail, a large number of blockchain projects were examined, which are listed in the supplementary material. The results of their research showed that the technology is well suited for open science and can provide advantages, for example, in data security, trust, and collaboration. However, they state that the widespread use of the technology depends on whether the scientific community accepts it and adapts its processes accordingly."

Of course, I would add the scientific source to this. I only removed it for the sake of clarity.

Please let me know what you think, I am very interested in your opinion. If I'm doing something wrong, excuse me, I'm still new to the platform and trying to learn the normal process.

Thanks, best regards, Ceifers


 * No worries. Usually you only want to keep it short and only report the conclusion of the study, so the sentence "In detail, a large number of blockchain projects were examined, which are listed in the supplementary material" can be safely left out. It is also important to briefly state how they came to that conclusion. In short, I think this text is fine, minus that one sentence. You should also be familiar with WP:PSTS, but this source seems to be a secondary source from what I can tell, so there does not seem to be a problem there.--Megaman en m (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you again for your help. I published the new text minus that sentence you mentioned. I also read WP:PSTS which helps to understand the difference between the existing kind of sources. Ceifers (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Verbal noun.
I edited the topic verbal noun, but for some reason it was edited! It is because my source is modern? How does traditional grammar definie verbal noun? Saigudfin (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted it because the citation was added at the very beginning of the article. Usually, they are added right after the information they source.--Megaman en m (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


MegaGoat (Talk) (Contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Thank you for being the first editor to introduce me to this project! MegaGoat (Talk) (Contribs) 17:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Linguistics
I think some mention of de Saussure and Chomsky is warranted to give someone who is unfamiliar with linguistics (and is therefore reading the article) some idea of who the leading figures in the field are? For example, Language (which is marked as a Good Article) states

in the lede. Chomsky in particular is mentioned heavily (much moreso than Pāṇini) in the body of the linguistics article; for him to not be mentioned in the lede of the article is therefore inconsistent. 108.17.92.48 (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not a big fan of the phrasing used in that quote from Language. I have nothing against mentioning them in the lead, but I would like for the reader to know what it is that made them leading figures in the first place.--Megaman en m (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I understand, but honestly I think it's better that they at least be mentioned, even if in a drive-by manner, rather being omitted from the lede altogether. If it's all right with you, I'll restore the phrasing I added and then you can expand on it if you want. 108.17.92.48 (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Reverted edit on diacritic
I see you reverted my edit on diacritic. First of all, jalapeno does have a tilde which is a diacritic (which IS a english takeon of the spanish culture). Second of all, the section was about english words that use or used accents and jalapeno technically is one of them. After all that, could you further explain why you reverted my edit please? UB Blacephalon (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It was a tangential sentence that didn't deserve its own paragraph, there was also no need to explain what a jalapeño is; it is assumed most people already know. The lead paragraph of that section already mentions Spanish loanwords sometimes retaining their diacritic (along with French). If you insist on adding jalapeño as an example, you can add it in the first paragraph where the French examples are listed. It is a bit odd how only French examples are given when it also mentions Spanish specifically. I hope this clears things up.--Megaman en m (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, alright I will. Thank you. UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Why did you revert my entry on EBM?
Please reconsider: I cited the AMA, which everyone knows, is a medical source. It is an interview between two renowned physicians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evidence-based_medicine&oldid=prev&diff=934059714 Seniorexpat (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The main problem lies with the fact that it was an audio interview. Just like with videos, it is very hard for users to verify where on the timeline the citation comes from. With some exceptions, Wikipedia should rely almost exclusively on written formats (although there is no ban on citing videos). In this situation, you could find a reliable secondary source (written) source that states Victor Montori's views. This could either be a scholarly paper, published book or a reliable news source. The acceptability of the inclusion of Victor Montori's views rests on them being notable and given due weight. I do not have enough familiarity with this subject, so I cannot say if his views should be included, but they should be cited the same format of other citations of Wikipedia.--Megaman en m (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Vowel length
Greetings! A quick research into Italian phonology will reveal that there are no such thing as phonetic vowel length in that language. The example given isn't just one of vowel length. I apologyze for not giving an explanation, but it is just plain wrong--Ngfsmg (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Mental disorder
You reverted my work on mental disorder. As a result, you reinforced people's wrong belief that mental disorder and mental illness are equated. i should not have to add a reliable source, since most psychiatrists agree with me, but most writers without knowledge of psychiatry do not. You instead are telling people that people like me with a mental disorder that is not mentally ill has a mental illness by reverting my work to the old equation formula. i do not know where to cite 'a reliable"source, but I can tell you that most clinicians would agree with me that mental disorders are not to be equate with mental illness. I am hoping that you undo the reversion and allow my work to stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.187.184 (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If everyone agrees with this, then a cursory search in the relevant literature would be enough to find a reliable source.--Megaman en m (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Blogs
User:Megaman, regarding your reversing my edit in the Psychology entry, I appreciate your feeling about blogs. The writer I cited, however, is a leading researcher in occupational health psychology and i/o psychology. He is widely respected. Otherwise I would have not included a reference to the blog. I would like to restore the reference. Is there a way to do that? Iss246 (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The WP site on blogs indicates that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.[Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Paul Spector is such an expert. I will include an additional source written by Spector as well. Iss246 (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Translation
Hello Megaman, you removed a bibliographic reference that I inserted under the translation topic to the book that I authored "The General Theory of the Translation Company" for being self-published. I reviewed the guidelines on self-publishing, and felt that the book would still fit. It is a specialty book that is used in at least 3 universities as a textbook: Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, Univesity of Surrey, and Concordia in Montreal.

It is the only business book on Translation Companies in the market and is commercially available from Amazon where you can see multiple independent reviews. The book was reviewed and edited by professionals and my company has published other books in the same niche market. The book has been translated into Russian and is currently being translated into Chinese, Arabic, and Italian.

Based on the above, I hope you reconsider the deletion.

Thank you and regards.

Renatob (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Following up on my previous comment. Can I get an answer or a comment?

Thank you in advance.

Renatob (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what is going on here, as it was apparently someone else that reverted your edit, not me. I'm not too familiar on the specifics of conflict of interest, but you can ask for more opinions on the page's talk page or on WP:HELPDESK.--Megaman en m (talk) 09:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Reference Clarifications
Thank you for your comments regarding the citations I made last week. I have reviewed the MEDRES page, and have a better understanding of the type of references that are appropriate. I am working on identifying some secondary sources that will fit better. I appreciate your time and effort to keep the pages accurate, and in accordance with the guidelines. Gracepolkosnik (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Participle
Hi, Megaman en m!!! Why do you thing that my editings here are tests? --EitanBor2001 (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The table is mostly empty and the Amharic and Aramaic subsections are completely blank. I assume the table is not finished, I don't understand what the "Binyan" column represents. Either way, the table needs some work, either eliminate the empty spaces or fill it out.--Megaman en m (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But the blank subsections can be a good motivation to fill them.--EitanBor2001 (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to motivate people you can do that in the talk page or on the appropriate wikiproject. Adding blank subsections just tricks and confuses the reader into thinking there is content where there is none.--Megaman en m (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

How many people even read the talk pages??? --EitanBor2001 (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Atom FA review
I have nominated Atom for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Kurzon (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to RedWarn
Hello, Megaman en m! I'm Ed6767. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta my new tool called RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

RedWarn is currently in use by over 80 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767  talk!  20:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Issues on Alliance for Financial Inclusion page
Hi, noticed you raised a few issues on this page: Alliance for Financial Inclusion

Kindly advise what are the issues? Will adjust accordingly, tks.--Johnt96 (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The article has plenty of colored buzzwords such as pioneer, empower, etc., and reads more like an employer's account of this organization rather than a neutral encyclopedic entry. The article's current tone is not drastically biased, but bits of positive (as opposed to neutral) point of views can be found creeping in many sentences. The "Working Groups" section is especially guilty of this, I'd recommend completely rewriting that in prose rather than its current list form. Perhaps reading WP:EPSTYLE will be of use to you.--Megaman en m (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry.
Thanks for your help! Symoum Syfullah Priyo (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Your advice
Last week, I started a draft article on Subject-Verb Agreement in English (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Subject-Verb_Agreement_in_English#Always_Plural) on finding no site completely explaining the topic. Today, it has been declined and someone has suggested merging it with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_(linguistics). I did so but it looks sort of out-of-place here. As a member of Wikiproject English, what do you think about it?

Shubhrajit Sadhukhan (talk)


 * I've actually seen it before you mentioned this while patrolling edits. It had a source and wasn't written terribly, so I left it in. On a glance, the first thing I'd recommend is cutting down on the examples. You don't need more than one example per "rule". It would also look a lot better if you didn't have the content in list form. So if you could write it in prose it would look better. For more help, you could try messaging people on the article's talk page or on the English portal directly.--Megaman en m (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Shubhrajit Sadhukhan (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Video games Newsletter Q2 2020
03:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Reverting my edit on Narcolepsy
Orexin (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Why did you revert my edit on "Rollback edit(s) by Orexin (talk) to rev. 964611522 by BHGbot: Reverting good faith edits (Page is dead, also please don't cite blogs, cite medical journals or at least college-level textbooks instead for medical articles like narcolepsy)" Narcolepsy UK is not a blog level citation. It is the leading institution on helping Narcoleptics in the UK with links to industry and the medical profession. If you'd cared to check the secondary references you'd would see that. They straight up link you to the so called "medical journals and institutions" that again restate the same thing in unspecific form. All the articles does is centralise that. If you want to know what I mean by links to industry they literally have people sitting on the advisory boards that manufacturer the drugs that narcoleptics take. That clearly does not just class a "blog level" as it also clearly has information in that not contained directly in the secondary references ie it is using sources in the NHS to and their own Researchers to know about the presence and applications of the drug usage in the UK. Something not clearly contained in the secondary references, references which only have vague references to the EU directives on application of "Orphan durgs". Hence it would not particularly be useful to the reader to look at that as they would have to have additional knowledge to know to apply that to the UK, all that they would know is that Bioprojet can sell Wakix in any EU nation. Hence utilizing knowledge, law and institutional resources to know this, that no "individual blog level" citation would not cause presumably the point of the rule is to avoid secondary and tertiary source distortion. In this case Narcolepsy UK is a primary source of information applicable to the United Kingdom. For example "May 2016 - Stock currently held in the UK will remain available on a NAMED PATIENT BASIS (3) only in the short term. Although commercial supply is expected to commence in the UK in the summer, market research, followed by decisions on unit price, reimbursement and the route to prescribing now need to take place ahead of any agreements being confirmed with the Department of Health. Commentary

It remains to be seen whether the orphan designation awarded Wakix®, combined with the manufacturers challenge of agreeing UK, EU and global pricing will impact on our ability as UK patients to have universal access to this medication. The very real concern is that a combination of this and the lack of understanding we see in the commissioning side of the NHS may create a barrier to access for at least some patients across the UK." This part comes from the researcher in Narcolepsy UK. It is unique information and a primary source as such. All it needed was the referencing format corrected. I urge you to revert it and make that correction or countermand what I've just said with a good enough reason. Cause I know an awful lot about Narcolepsy so I know what a good source is from a bad one. As I've read about 2000 pages of 3 different highly technical books + on the subject meant for world experts. So will be making a lot of edits on this so called "dead page". Edit to be reverted and the referencing corrected as I do know why it comes out funny on previews, PS okay now I know why just worked it out: However, usage now does exist in certain nations such as in the United Kingdom's NHS as of February 2016.

Removing of External Link!
Hi Megaman en m,

Thanks for offering a conversation.

I am aware of Wikipedia's External Links policy. I also checked this policy section. Where I found these two paragraphs.

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[4] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."

and

"Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

Also I checked "Links normally to be avoided" section, where I find a valid point,

"Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions and crowdfunding pages. See Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming."

and

"Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)"

So the external links for Parts of Speech is already mentioned before my changes. Recently when I checked that I find that page (https://partsofspeech.net/parts-of-speech-definition-example/ is redirected to https://youressay.club/parts-of-speech-in-english-grammar/) so it highly needed to change the permalink.

2nd the webpage I personally went through the webpage "https://youressay.club/parts-of-speech-in-english-grammar/" and find this site is not made for promotional matter, they don't have any ads or affiliate while checking their stuff on Parts of Speech, I find it is absolutely helpful, with proper infographic and illustrator. Which is fall in Wikipedia's [Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.] guideline.

I totally understand that link spamming is nowadays a big conspiracy. But the sites which definitely provide good stuff and user experience should be linked. Not just because it is a blog.

Lastly, that particular link is already in the external links section, which is added by someone else. So I don't this I personally add anything new, I just change the source to avoid 301 redirects for better User experience.

I will highly request you to, revert your decision, and read the external source, then let me know.--Amsaswata (talk) 05:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * After reviewing the source for a second time, I'm afraid that I stand by my decision. I understand that you didn't add this source but merely changed the URL to link to it properly. The article was written by a mechanical engineer, not someone who would be a recognized authority in linguistics. There are so many reliable sources to choose from for a topic as "parts of speech" such as textbooks and papers. I also can't help but notice that your user name is very, very close to the name of that post's author, Saswata Baksi. If this is you or someone you're closely related to in any way, please note that Wikipedia has strict guidelines on how to deal with conflicts of interest. You can read about it here. Thank you for your understanding.--Megaman en m (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Removed links on Linguistic Relativity
The links I added were to established wikipedia articles. Did you follow the links, or just delete them without checking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organuz (talk • contribs) 00:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source, as anyone can change its content. Sources need to come from authoritative secondary sources. Those constructed languages were also not relevant to the concept of linguistic relativity, which is the second reason why I felt I had to revert.--Megaman en m (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

x is "pronounced" refers to phonetics in the example
I'm not going to revert "pronounced /p/" just now in Phonemic orthography, just wanted to let you know that in the example you reverted, as the text is written the point of "pronounced X" is to describe the surface phonetic merger of /p/ and /b/ due to assimilation in terms of voicing, i.e. assuming /b/ in /obtener/, /b/ → [p]. (If /optener/ is assumed, then simple mismatch of grapheme-phoneme is the issue.) I usually explain changes if they're not obvious, as it's helpful to others to describe changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary, especially when undoing someone else's work -- a matter of basic politesse, if nothing else. I though this case was quite obvious, i.e. referring straightforwardly to the surface phonetics. I'll take time to explain the edit next time. Cheers. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

My Edits to Wikipedia Creativity Page should have Remained because Relevant Knowledge is Power
Hello ! My intention is not to advertise but to relay relevant and factual information about the topic I posted on the Wikipedia Creativity page as well as other pages. I am therefore requesting the following edit to the Creativity Wikipedia page because it is important for people to know about this creative business and its invention. I have also disclosed the conflict of interest problem as I am an owner of this business. I think that Wikipedia should change its guidelines to allow people to post their own information, whether it be promotional or not, because this information constitutes knowledge to which everyone has a right of access. Thank you for understanding.

Information to be added to Creativity: In 2020, Rukhsi Sharif (shortened version of her full name Rukhsar Sharif), established the first online creative counseling and collaborations company to help people known as Creatifecundity, Incorporated. The new and original creative invention on the Creatifecundity, Incorporated website called the "Creative Collaboration Forums", its content created by Rukhsi Sharif and its programming completed by Benjamin Preiser, Binghamton University, Class of 2022, partners people of diverse careers for mutual support and betterment of the society and world. Explanation of issue: Conflict of Interest as I own the business relayed in the information. References supporting change: https://medium.com/authority-magazine/rukhsi-sharif-5-steps-that-each-of-us-can-take-to-proactively-help-heal-our-country-3b063a22a9d2#:~:text=To%20proactively%20help%20heal%20our%20country%2C%20each%20of%20us%20can,to%20be%20able%20to%20help; https://www.creatifecundity.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rukhsisharif (talk • contribs) 06:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)<:/small>
 * Wikipedia is simply not the place to advertise anything. If your business is notable enough, that is, if it's mentioned in several reliable high-profile sources, then someone will create a page for it eventually. I advise you strongly to not make any edits relating to your business on Wikipedia. Thank you for understanding.--Megaman en m (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

"see also" section revertion
Hi, your revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eye_movement_desensitization_and_reprocessing&oldid=prev&diff=976158204&markasread=198813774&markasreadwiki=enwiki

is IMO erroneous as a major part of EFT and EMDR is said to be "finger tapping", and they therefore seem quite related to me. Please consider undoing the revert.

Spiko-carpediem (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * That's a tenuous connection at best, just about everything else is completely different. If you really want to take this further, you can continue on the talk page of EMDR.--Megaman en m (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Self-efficacy
Vergebener_Benutzername2 is adding reference spam to promote his own work. That was the reason I removed it. I should have put it in the edit summary. 2605:A000:1327:6313:4DE1:63B7:A890:CA48 (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks for your tips. I hope I am using this talk page correctly.

Sumbrella45 (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC) 

Phonological Rule Feedback
Just wanted to pass along a big thank you for accidentally omitting sources when I moved my contributions from my sandbox to the mainspace! Ghorsefield (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Video games Newsletter Q3 2020
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal of links from Bulimia Nervosa
Dear editor, thank you for your contribution to the Bulimia nervosa article. However, I wonder if the straight-up removal of links to symptomatology was necessarily the correct step without consulting the medical community around the article or the Talk page. Many of the links you removed were links to symptoms of this disorder which is a common practice in medical articles, including the links to suicide, behaviour (symptom), anxiety, self-harm, etc. as well as the risk factors. For instance, obesity is fairly standardised as a medical condition and a consequent risk-factor. Could you please explain why you believe these links are redundant? Thank you, Revanchist317 (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I view wikilinks as something that should be used for concepts that are not explained in the article but are important to understand it. Wikilinks are there to help the reader understand the article better. I do not think that linking common, everyday words that every native English speaker is expecting to know is helpful. No adult native should be confused by words like "suicide" or "obesity". The majority of wikilinks are never clicked on by readers (66%), so flooding the article with blue words is only going to obfuscate the wikilinks that are actually useful. This is why I left wikilinks like "eating disorder", "binge eating" in: they're crucial to understanding the very concept of what bulimia is, even if most readers should know what these mean. Meanwhile words like "diuretic" and "Kleine-Levin syndrome" can not be expected to be known by all native speakers. This is my take on it, if you really feel my edit should be reverted then go for it; I won't argue it.--Megaman en m (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I will revert back links to depression (mood), anxiety, psychological stress and a few more since these are quite specifically defined and many laypeople might confuse them. I agree that most links are not ever clicked on, but I personally reckon the option of doing so warrants their use nonetheless. Cheers, Revanchist317 (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis
Hi Megaman. Could you suggest where that line whose edit you reverted could be moved in the article instead then, if it doesn't merit a section? We can always add more to the section as well, but it will take a while. KaveriNadi (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure myself where it would fit best, nor do I know if the source is reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. I suggest starting a discussion on the article's talk page.--Megaman en m (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The source a well-known/mainstream publication. KaveriNadi (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

HARKing Page
Thank for you suggesting the changes at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HARKing, and I accept that they are made in good faith. You indicated that the reason for the proposed changes is that “The article is titled "HARKing", there's no need to specify the title of the sections any further than it already is.” But I think that adding “HARKing” to the some of the section titles clarifies any potential ambiguity about the section contents (e.g., "Rates" on its own is a bit confusing). I have checked the Wikipedia guidelines on section headings at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout and there are no strict rules on this point: “Because of the diversity of subjects it covers, Wikipedia has no general standard or guideline regarding the names or order of section headings within the body of an article.” Given that I wrote this article, I would like to see if you might be willing to revert these changes back to their original please. Rubinpsyc (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * . This can be solved easily by changing "rates" to something like "prevalence". "Costs" Might be changed to something like "disadvantages". Specifying that each title is indeed still talking about HARKing is simply making the title longer and forces the reader to mentally filter out all the fluff to figure out what the subsection is actually about. As for the guideline you linked, it also states that "The usual practice is to name and order sections based on the precedent of similar articles." If we look at a related article like publication bias, we see that each title is as short as possible. With all of this said, I stand by my decision. As a side note, please remember that you do not own any article on Wikipedia. Anyone can edit it and your decision does not carry any more weight just because you wrote it.--Megaman en m (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * . Thanks for your advice on this. I've changed some of the titles to try to clarify their current ambiguity but, following your recommendation to avoid redundancies, I have not used the word "HARKing." I do get what you mean about not making the titles unnecessarily long, but I think there is a balance to be met here between (a) long enough to accurately summarise the section contents and (b) short enough to be efficient. Please take a look and let me know what you think. I hope these new changes meet with your approval. I should also say that I take your point about ownership of the wiki. I was just trying to point out that I have a good understanding with the wiki's contents and so I believe that I know where meanings may need to be nuanced. But again, let me know if you are not happy and I can revisit the changes. Rubinpsyc (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * . I'm fine with these changes as they stand, I won't contest you on this any further.--Megaman en m (talk) 08:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * .OK. Thanks. Glad those changes make sense, and thank you for your advice on this. Rubinpsyc (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Kurgan culture
Greetings! Here are referenses: [1 ] and [2 ] that had been already used in these articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD#%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%B2 (UTC)

Articulatory Setting
Sir! Peter Roach having written in English Phonetics and Phonology that it is difficult to confirm these settings scientifically and etc, I do not understand why there is no information about lack of scientific proofs. I am a reader of EnWiki, and, to tell you the exact truth, I think it to be very important to describe all points of views on that. I believe you to think this conception to be doubtful, therefore there is a controversy. That's why it is evident that the afore-said article is not completely correct. The article being incomplete, I cannot transcribe it. What is a conventional point?

In a word, I pray you to lay down the conventional point of view in the following article. The phrase ''Non-native speakers typically find the basis of articulation one of the greatest challenges in acquiring a foreign language's pronunciation. Speaking with the basis of articulation of their own native language results in a foreign accent, even if the individual sounds of the target language are produced correctly.'' seems not to be conventional.Роман Сидоров (г. Смоленск) (talk) 08:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q4 2020
 The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter

Volume 12, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2020

Previous issue | Index | Next issue 

Project At a Glance As of Q4 2020, the project has:


 * 239 Featured Articles
 * 88 Featured Lists
 * 10 Featured Topics


 * 33 Featured Pictures
 * 1,650 Good Articles
 * 28 Good Topics

Content


 * Changes to Featured and Good content
 * News items and announcements
 * WP:VG Talk Page Digest


 * Feature: Don't fake your work
 * Follow-up: VG editing in a time of COVID
 * Interview: TarkusAB

Project Navigation

To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list. (Delivered 08:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * VG Project Main pages
 * Main project – talk
 * Project category – talk
 * Portal – talk
 * VG Project Departments
 * Assessment – talk
 * Cleanup – talk
 * Peer review – talk
 * Reference library – talk
 * Newsletter – talk
 * Video game images – talk
 * Video game images – talk

Note About "Gaster Blasters"
The term "Gaster Blaster" was coined in the Undertale source code. The sprite is named that in the files but otherwise never mentioned.

It's why people have such a strong belief that the Skeleton Bros. are somehow related to Gaster, given that filename and the whole gig of speaking exclusively in fonts. But even then we don't know if Gaster speaks in a font or not, or even what he looks like, but we know he was a monster in Undertale. -GoatLordServant(Talk-Contribs) 22:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The Nomad Soul
Hi. Since you reviewed the article, I would like to get a second opinion on this. Should we mention this person in text and/or include the name as a Producer in the infobox? Have a nice day. ภץאคгöร 23:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of this situation, but either way, everything should remain verifiable just like every other article. I'd ask someone more knowledgeable on this, I don't know much about the game or developers coming into the article like this. But again, if there is no reliable source out there we can use, then we can't add it. As far as I know.--Megaman en m (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Reverted edit on Dixon's wheel hypothesis
I see you reverted my edit regarding whether all languages are moving from synthetic to analytic, or whether it's just something (Indo-)European - per sources on the page already before my edit. Is it truly a matter of just providing sources for basic facts such as that Mandarin Chinese is in the process of moving from isolating to agglutinative, and a higher number of sources for the general cyclic trend (oldest ones? newest ones?  this realization dates back to the 19th century), or is it more like that the single source I provided for the general cyclic trend raises red flags? To be honest, I find it quite ridiculous to look at data from just a few European languages and interpret the findings as a universal tendency of languages. Which is what that page is currently doing; the original sources are quite honest about their limited scope of research. I'm not sure whether this over-interpretation happened accidentally or intentionally and to what degree you seek to preserve that interpretation. Lalaith (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Reverted edit on Reduplication Armenian
I see you reverted my edit concerning reduplication. I am the one who added the Turkish entry as well. Therefore, I have made note of the ways of reduplication. I can give verifiable Armenian grammatical and lexicographical sources, which attest to these words; however, the terminology of the reduplicated forms is borrowed from the Turkish literature. If you revert my previous post, I can update it. (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

You don't need my permission, you're free to revert or re-add the content, assuming you'll include your reliable source.--Megaman en m (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2021
 The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter

Volume 13, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2021

Previous issue | Index | Next issue 

Project At a Glance As of Q1 2021, the project has:


 * 241 Featured Articles
 * 89 Featured Lists
 * 10 Featured Topics


 * 34 Featured Pictures
 * 1,684 Good Articles
 * 31 Good Topics

Content


 * Changes to Featured and Good content
 * News items and announcements
 * WP:VG Talk Page Digest


 * Survey: How does WikiProject Video games determine character notability?
 * Interview: Namcokid47

Project Navigation

To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list. (Delivered 13:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)) -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * VG Project Main pages
 * Main project – talk
 * Project category – talk
 * Portal – talk
 * VG Project Departments
 * Assessment – talk
 * Cleanup – talk
 * Peer review – talk
 * Reference library – talk
 * Newsletter – talk
 * Video game images – talk
 * Video game images – talk

Hi!
Sir, Can you tell me if is there any "correct" style of writing in Wikipedia or something like that. I hope you answer. Have an awesome day. Yours faithfully. 100.undentifieduser (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Flying monkeys (popular psychology)
Please engage discussion on talk page before reverting edits. The edits were made in good faith and certainly subject to additional editing, but not reverting. Please engage on the Talk page Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC notice
This is a neutral notice sent to all non-bot/non-blocked registered users who edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics in the past year that there is a new request for comment at. Nardog (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Nigerian Pidgin
Hi, I've seen your message notifying me that you've reverted my changes regarding Nigerian Pidgin being the world's largest creole language, while calling Haitian Creole as just « one notable creole language ». You said that I didn't provide any reliable source. This is problematic at two levels : 1. I did provide a link : an internal Wikipedia link, that takes you directly to a page that does state that Nigerian Pidgin is a creole (it's actually not a pidgin, as its name suggests) and is spoken by 40 million speakers (ie. three times the number of speakers for Haitian), both those info are supported by academic sources linked on that page. Should I really have copied those links again to the « creole » page ? I think not. 2. The link provided on the page in support of « Haitian is the world's biggest creole » sends to a page that doesn't say that at all !! This is the page : https://iwl.virginia.edu/language/haitian-creole. It's an advertisement for Haitian language classes, that just says « the language is spoken by 10 million people », period. It states no where that « Haitian is the world's largest creole ». Conclusion, Nigerian Pidgin is spoken by 40 million, Haitian Creole by 10 million, so Haitian cannot be the biggest, and as long as noone showed any example of a more widely spoken creole, Nigerian is the biggest. :)

Gaslighting
I opened a discussion on the talk page Talk:Gaslighting to discuss at the "In politics" section as per your request. 107.77.196.68 (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

My edits
Hello, I saw that you reverted my self revert on the article Hallucinations. I cited this incorrectly. I also discovered after the edit that hallucinations can cause false beliefs, but only reach delusional conviction in psychotic patients. I discussed this on the talk page. WikiJanitorPerson (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Romance - excessive examples
I was surprised to see the claim of excessive examples of Romance, and I thought I'd chime in to express one person's disagreement. I can imagine that I understand why it seems excessive, but it's an excellent way to offer non-expert readers some indication of the vast variety of Romance. In fact, the list could be extended considerably. I'd also suggest that something like the excessive examples claim be discussed in Talk before issuing an open invitation on the article page for "removing less pertinent examples". Whether there are or are not excessive examples, and if there are, which those might be, is properly sorted out collegially rather than by fiat. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

"died" vs. "murdered" in the Holocaust
Hi, thanks for reviewing my edit on Yiddish. I have to disagree with you on the wording: I am firmly convinced that using "died" instead of "murdered" is an inappropriate softening of the language. It is accurate and neutral in tone to say "murdered", because that's what happened: the Holocaust was pre-meditated, state-sanctioned mass-murder. These five million Yiddish speakers were not accidental deaths, incidental casualties of war, or victims of a natural disaster; they were murder victims. It is appropriate to say "as many as 12,000 people died during the 1900 Galveston hurricane"; but saying "three thousand Jews were deported to Treblinka where they died" elides the fact that these deaths were pre-meditated murders and linguistically avoids assigning any responsibility for the deaths, when very clearly, the Nazis were the perpetrators. The enwiki pages The Holocaust and Final Solution use "murder" throughout (as well as nlwiki), as do the pages for most of the individual camps. There are plenty of reliable sources using the phrase "murder" to refer to all 6 million Jewish victims of the Holocaust (for one, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum here or Yad Vashem here). I'm happy to discuss further.-Ich (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

IP citespammer
FYI, that IP is very likely User:Miaumee editing while logged out. They've also been adding quite a lot of links to Mathvault.ca It looks to me like both sites were set up by the same person. - MrOllie (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The wh sound as well as the hy sound are phonemes.
I can give you examples of words that show that they aren't just [hw] and [hj] combinations. For example, Huawei is pronounced [hwa.weɪ] and cue is pronounced [kçu], because the Yod is devoiced after an unvoiced consonant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiggieChungus69 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022
Hello, I'm Yodas henchman. I noticed that you recently removed content from Brazilian Sign Language without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Yodas henchman (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for me!
Thanks these pictures of sweet little kitten s I love them so much 💓😍

P.V.Mkhaliphi (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC) 

Regarding user biography
I'd like to know how to improve my biography by adding boxes that describe me(e.g. "This user likes rock" or "This user supports environmentalism"). Thx Lucidum Hydra (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

goatee lol
goatee

Lucidum Hydra (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Deleted content
You had deleted some content from article Breaking Bad stating that I didn't provide a reliable source. Actually the source is on the article page itself, I only provided it in "infobox" section also. That's it. You may check yourself.

Thank you TriMain182681 (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Deleted content
You deleted the section about Dreaming of Words from the dictionary section. It is not mentioning every dictionary ever made. But, it is the only film which actually discusses the making of a dictionary and the life of a lexicographer. I believe this makes it important for those who studies about dictionaries and lexicography. Kindly undo the edit. Please check Dreaming of Words and references if required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitobasch (talk • contribs) 08:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Re coordinating conjunctions and correlative conjunctions
Hi Megaman en m. If you check the cites I just posted in Conjunction_(grammar), you'll see the trends re the recently diminishing use of the terms coordinating conjunction and correlative conjunction. Questions I have my own theories (mainly, that coordinating conjunction and correlative conjunction are cross-linguistic and interlingual nightmares) that aren't ripe for Wikipedia. In my own lexicon, I shun the terms in favor of protologistic stuff that similarly isn't ripe for Wikipedia. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you know of any terms that have been supplanting them, and that might be proper additions to the Conjunction (grammar) article?
 * 2) Do you have any concrete evidence for citing the reason re the abovementioned trend in diminished use?


 * I'm not familiar with any terms that might be considered replacements.--Megaman en m (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

ADHD reverted edit
Hi! You reverted my edit on ADHD. I added a section discussing it on the talk page. I think you misunderstood my edit. I meant that those symptoms are *core* symptoms of ADHD, not symptoms only "some" people with ADHD experience. I have a citation that emotional dysregulation is a core symptom. Executive function issues are kind of the entire disorder, and I can find a citation for that too.

Jhartzell42 (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The Origins of Language
== https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language

You undid my information about the Origins of Language. I referenced a book that has new information about the origins of language. Did you read that book? Everyone who reads agrees with the information in it.

I am bringing to light the information about Manakahthey and provided many references. what is the deal with you? I thought information on Wiki had to be original. You want me to search an Encyclopedia to get the information and then post it? I quoted the bible, a book and websites. You must read the book to know about the added information Itharey (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Lost in the mall technique
I removed the 2 sentences in 2 different paragraphs because one had no sources and both read like someone who appended them was thinking of an imaginary argument they are having between the existence of false memories and the fact that it can be used by some to dismiss claims of childhood sexual abuse.

"However, it remains to be seen how an older relative verifying the lost incident applies to what might happen in therapy." Not encyclopedic, no source, and what does therapy have to do with what was said in the paragraph?

"Coan later refined the study methodology for his senior thesis where he reports "all subjects were able to identify the false memory"(p. 16). Coan, J.A., (1993, August 18), Creating False Memories, Senior Paper, Psychology Honors Program, University of Washington. " Incorrect attribution, couldn't source the citation, and again it sounds like someone added it to a paragraph carefully explaining his methodology to basically say "actually, later on Coan said his original study was bullshit". The citation comes verbatim from another work by Lynn Crook, who is described in the article as one of two "psychologists who made their career in part with recovered memories" and challenge the validity of lost in the mall technique and the existence of false memories and are accused of "a long series of efforts to discredit her integrity as a researcher and her work". Loftus, who came up with the concept of lost in the mall technique, testified for the defense in Crook’s lawsuit against her parents in 1994. 85.253.102.218 (talk) 03:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * You're free to redo the edit and provide a succint edit summary. Megaman en m (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Latest (and most likely final) issue of the WP:VG newsletter
<div style=" background-color: #eeeeee; border-top: 4px #eeeeee solid; border-left: 2px #eeeeee solid; border-right: 2px #eeeeee solid; text-align: center; padding: 0.5em; margin:0em;"> The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter

Volume 14, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2023

Previous issue | Index <div style="border-left: 2px #eeeeee solid; border-right: 2px #eeeeee solid; border-bottom: 5px #eeeeee solid; margin:0em;padding:1em; background:#FEFEFE;">

Project At a Glance As of Q4 2022, the project has:


 * 259 Featured Articles
 * 95 Featured Lists
 * 10 Featured Topics


 * 35 Featured Pictures
 * 1,862 Good Articles
 * 31 Good Topics

Content


 * Changes to Featured and Good content
 * News items and announcements


 * Survey: How does WikiProject Video games determine character notability?
 * Some news regarding the status of the newsletter

Project Navigation

To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * VG Project Main pages
 * Main project – talk
 * Project category – talk
 * Portal – talk
 * VG Project Departments
 * Assessment – talk
 * Cleanup – talk
 * Peer review – talk
 * Reference library – talk
 * Newsletter – talk
 * Video game images – talk
 * Video game images – talk

German cases
OK, I see what you mean. That paragraph isn't terribly well written, IMO, but it's ok. Sorry for the fuss. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)