User talk:Espoo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

Hello everyone, and welcome to the December 2016 GOCE newsletter. We had an October newsletter all set to go, but it looks like we never pushed the button to deliver it, so this one contains a few months of updates. We have been busy and successful!

Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: Nominations are open for election of Coordinators for the first half of 2017. Please visit the election page to nominate yourself or another editor, and then return after December 15 to vote. Thanks for participating!

September Drive: The September drive was fruitful. We set out to remove July through October 2015 from our backlog (an ambitious 269 articles), and by the end of the month, we had cut that pile of oldest articles to just 83. We reduced our overall backlog by 97 articles, even with new copyedit tags being added to articles every day. We also handled 75% of the remaining Requests from August 2016. Overall, 19 editors recorded copy edits to 233 articles (over 378,000 words).

October Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 16 through 22 October; the theme was Requests, since the backlog was getting a bit long. Of the 16 editors who signed up, 10 editors completed 29 requests. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part.

November Drive: The November drive was a record-breaker! We set out to remove September through December 2015 from our backlog (239 articles), and by the end of the month, we had cut that pile of old articles to just 66, eliminating the two oldest months! We reduced our overall backlog by 523 articles, to a new record low of 1,414 articles, even with new tags being added to articles every day, which means we removed copy-editing tags from over 800 articles. We also handled all of the remaining Requests from October 2016. Officially, 14 editors recorded copy edits to 200 articles (over 312,000 words), but over 600 articles, usually quick fixes and short articles, were not recorded on the drive page.

Housekeeping note: we do not send a newsletter before every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your Watchlist.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdslk.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

Hello everyone, and welcome to the February 2017 GOCE newsletter. The Guild has been busy since the last time your coordinators sent out a newsletter!

December blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 December; the themes were Requests and eliminating the November 2015 backlog. Of the 14 editors who signed up, nine editors completed 29 articles. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all who took part.

January drive: The January drive was a great success. We set out to remove December 2015 and January and February 2016 from our backlog (195 articles), and by 22 January we had cleared those and had to add a third month (March 2016). At the end of the month we had almost cleared out that last month as well, for a total of 180 old articles removed from the backlog! We reduced our overall backlog by 337 articles, to a low of 1,465 articles, our second-lowest month-end total ever. We also handled all of the remaining requests from December 2016. Officially, 19 editors recorded 337 copy edits (over 679,000 words).

February blitz: The one-week February blitz, focusing on the remaining March 2016 backlog and January 2017 requests, ran from 12 to 18 February. Seven editors reduced the total in those two backlog segments from 32 to 10 articles, leaving us in good shape going in to the March drive.

Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 stepped aside as lead coordinator, remaining as coordinator and allowing Miniapolis to be the lead, and Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators. Thanks to all who participated!

Speaking of coordinators, congratulations to Jonesey95 on their well-deserved induction into the Guild of Copy Editors Hall of Fame. The plaque reads: "For dedicated service as lead coordinator (2014, 1 July – 31 December 2015 and all of 2016) and coordinator (1 January – 30 June 2015 and 1 January – 30 June 2017); exceptional template-creation work (considerably streamlining project administration), and their emphasis on keeping the GOCE a drama-free zone."

Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your watchlist.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdslk.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Economics[edit]

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 - [1]. 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[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg 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[edit]

Information.svg

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)