|Nuujinn is away on vacation and may not respond swiftly to queries.|
|Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS|
GOCE February blitz wrapup
|Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2014 wrap-up
Participation: Out of seven people who signed up for this blitz, all copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 16 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
In re very old comments at Pancreatic cancer article
Just a note, regarding a comment of yours made a couple years back, regarding content at the Pancreatic cancer article. The question in play was whether a particular point could be made from a particular source. (The question was relationship between dietary sugar and pancreatic cancer cell growth.) The general point I would like to make to you (perhaps long past needing be said)—one should not source scientific factual information from news reports, essentially ever. If it is in news report, it ought be in a primary scientific source. If it is in a primary scientific source, the question then becomes, "It is an important result, concept, or model, having achieved a significant following or having become the preponderance of scientific perspective?". This question is judged by the appearance of the result, concept, or model in good quality secondary sources (preferably more than one). Bottom line, news reports are good for saying a scientific matter is newsworthy, and not (ever) for defining the scientific matter itself. Once can write, from a Reuters or similar type of source… "The matter of the relationship between sugar in diet and the growth of pancreatic cancer has received media attention.", but cannot from that same source say… "There is a relationship between sugar in diet and the growth pf pancreatic cancer." For the latter, one simply must go to the scientific sources (and not rely on a news writers interpretation of a press release, a self-published source). All to say here. Hope this finds you well, and that you have come to this, otherwise, over the years here. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
GOCE July drive and August blitz
|Guild of Copy Editors July 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up
Participation: Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the 40 people who signed up this drive, 22 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
Progress report: We reduced our article backlog from 2400 articles to 2199 articles in July. This is a new month-end record low for the backlog. Nice work, everyone!
Blitz: The August blitz will run from August 24–30. The blitz will focus on articles from the GOCE's Requests page. Awards will be given out to everyone who copy edits at least one of the target articles. The blitz will run from August 24–30. Sign up here!
Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, , and .