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 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EtymAesthete. Thank you. --DAJF (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
In a recent edit to the page Medical ethics, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate what you are claiming, but the edits made on the referred page are not respective to a regional dialect of English but respective to proper English usage in consideration of language history for the purpose of conveying the meaning intended to be conveyed. This is, however, in contrast to regional English spellings, idioms, and usage of punctuation relative to quotation-marks, which I leave as they are stated.
- 1. The statement
- "Double effect" refers to two types of consequences which may be produced by a single action
- was modified to
- "Double effect" refers to two types of consequences that may be produced by a single action
- because that is a relative-pronoun that in this case represents the subset of consequences referring to "double effect."
- This might not seem like a major issue here, but, for someone not familiar with a specific topic encountering a phrase such as ...is an enzyme which catalyzes the hydrolysis of the substrate, the reader could misinterpret the meaning to be that all enzymes catalyze the hydrolysis of the substrate, whereas, in fact, it is only the specific enzyme being referred to, that is, a subset that catalyzes the hydrolysis of the substrate, in which case the proper statement is ...is an enzyme that catalyzes the hydrolysis of the substrate. The point is that sloppy speaking and writing, even when there is little ambiguity, slides into places - of which there are many on Wikipedia and even in "academic" speaking and writing - where there develops great ambiguity and the resultant confusion. The role of the educator, scientist, average speaker, average writer is to speak and write with clarity not amplify confusion. As such, which and that are not to be used at the whim of the user; each has a precise meaning derived from language history.
- 2. The phrase health care ethics was changed to healthcare ethics because ethics of health care or ethics of health-care is healthcare ethics or health-care ethics, just as an occurrence of every day is an everyday occurrence or every-day occurrence.
- 3. a. The statement containing persons who lack mental capacity are generally treated was changed because of the misuse of generally here. There is a grand distinction between, for example,
- the bacterium is generally present on the skin, meaning the bacterium is present on a general scale on the skin [that is, all over the skin]
- in general, the bacterium is present on the skin, meaning when the bacterium is in fact present, it is on the skin [as opposed to other possible places].
- In the case of the examples of this article, it is, indeed, the latter meaning that is the intended meaning to be conveyed by the article.
- 3. b. The other part of the phrase persons who lack mental capacity
- was condensed to the more meaningful gerund form to
- persons lacking mental capacity
- for, in fact, the phrase should be
- persons that lack mental capacity in order to differentiate those that do lack from those that do not lack. But, in consideration of the lack of general knowledge of people on the historical difference between that and who and how they are used, I decided on the gerund form of the phrase.
- Now, please, be considerate of the amount of time and effort expended in the little history and education presented here and not just - as do others - take grand offense and click on undo relative to my edits on the referred page. Thank you. NewEnglandDr (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
|This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of EtymAesthete that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text