User:Yogabear2020/sandbox

Message for talk page
Content changes made to 'Sans in Japanese' and 'PSR ideas by Elvery'

As part of a GOCE edit, I amended some content a bit more than slightly to support and help make clear the ideas of previous contributors, using the already cited relevant sources. This applies to two sections:


 * In the section about the Japanese version of Sans, I added supporting text and changed some paraphrased ideas, using the main cited source for guidance. This was an attempt to make the ideas more clear, readable, and to match the source. I am not an expert in Japanese; but I took ideas from the source and also added some direct quotations for support.


 * In the section about 'PSRs with Sans ' by Gabriel Elvery, I added material and rephrased some, based on my reading of the cited paper by Elvery. The previous version was concise but a little unclear, and it had some unattributed quotes. Using the cited source, I attempted to flesh out the argument and included some direct quotation; in addition, I amended some of the paraphrasing, while attempting to retain points made by previous contributors. My changes made the section longer—I hope not too long. IMO the arguments made by Elvery really help to show how Sans is a unique character who deserves his own article (per the previous discussion–thread that decided, IMO rightly so, this article should not be incorporated into Undertale).
 * In the same section, I have edited to include the preferred pronouns 'they/their' of the cited author (Elvery), and I added a citation as reference for both their pronoun usage and academic credentials.

I am not an expert on any of the content topics. If something about my changes could be improved, please do so, or start a discussion in a new thread below to make content suggestions. This thread is just to acknowledge my a bit more than slight content changes, during a GOCE edit focused on grammar, readability, MOS style, issues of attribution, etc. Thanks.

Changes to make to section on PSRs
Author Gabriel Elvery has stated that parasocial relationships with Sans, which are developed in playthroughs counter to the convention, encourage care, mutual understanding, and community building. He further said that PSR's inclusion as a fundamental feature of the game highlights the similarities between our interactions with people and technology: By fostering parasocial interactions with characters like Sans, learns to not act mindlessly and should always question established procedures.

The game includes PSRs—like with Sans—as an "integral function" of the player's experience. Parasocial interactions (PSIs) with Sans, during the various moments of play, create a "shared history" that, in turn, creates a sense of community. Throughout the different game routines, the unconventional portrayal of Sans the "monster" goes against typical attitudes towards NPCs in other games: Sans is more a "lovable monster" than something just to fear and kill. As argued by Elvery, the interactions with Sans encourage the player to care and foster a sense of mutual understanding. They further argue that the game, by fostering the PSR with Sans (and others), makes us more aware of the similarity between "our relationships with people and our relationship to technology": both relationships require learning how to act mindfully and questioning of established procedures.

Author Gabriel Elvery has stated that parasocial relationships with Sans, which are developed in playthroughs counter to the convention, encourage care, mutual understanding, and community building. He further said that PSR's inclusion as a fundamental feature of the game highlights the similarities between our interactions with people and technology: we should never act mindlessly and should always question established procedures.

The sibling relationship between Papyrus and Sans has also been praised. RPGFan writer Alana Hagues felt that their distinct personalities make them a great pair. She appreciated how their humor helped "carry [her] through a tearjerker of a game" and helped her "fall in love" with the setting.

Comments from "rules of the road"

 * Semicolons were used consistently to join independent clauses that were joined by coordinating conjunctions.
 * On two occasions when paragraphs were split the paragraphs split were left without citations.
 * Which is used after a comma to introduce a nonessential relative clause. That is used without a comma to introduce an essential relative clause.

All these suggestions seem valid, but the errors all seem to be fixed now? (I did, as a novice editor, ask you for your feedback on my 'GOCE edit', but I did so on your talk page.) My editing session for this article is over: there is no need to include or ping me here in future discussions. But thanks for finding, outlining, and fixing my errors: I will try to learn from them. My apologies for the extra work. If you need a further response, or would like to bring other mistakes I've made to my attention, find my talk page. — Yogabear2020 (N.B. NoviceEditor; Talk) 03:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the careful points made about mistakes in the recent copy edit by the novice editor: me. I'm not sure a response is merited on this talk page (rather than, say, on yours or my own): these issues seem to have already been resolved. (I did ask for your feedback on my work as a new editor, but I did so on your user talk page, not here.)

In any case, all these suggestions seem valid: the reasoning is sound, the "rules" valid. (Though I think the "rule" about 'which'/'that' may be a bit more loose than stated.) My editing session for this article is over; there is no need to include or ping me in future discussions.

Hopefully this is an appropriate reply? (It seems quite far from the subject of anything related to the SPARS.) Thanks for fixing my errors; my apologies. I will try to learn from them.

Thanks for the careful points made about mistakes in the recent copy edit by the novice editor: me. I'm not sure a response is merited on this talk page (rather than, say, my own): these issues seem to have already been resolved. (I did ask for your feedback on my work as a new editor, but I did so on your user talk page, not here.) But I'll go ahead and be bold by responding, as the 'message' seems to ask me (i.e., the "you"/"yours") for a reply.

All these suggestions seem valid. (Though I think the "rule" about 'which'/'that' may be a bit more loose than stated.) However, changes seem to already have been made? (I'm not sure which citations were 'lost', but I presume they've already been caught: my apologies for the extra work correcting these and the other errors.) My editing session for this article is over; there is no need to include or ping me in future discussions.

Hopefully this is an appropriate reply? (It seems quite far from the subject of anything related to the SPARS.) Thanks again for fixing my errors; my apologies. I will try to learn from them.

Thanks for the careful points made about mistakes in the recent copy edit by the new editor: me. I'm not sure a response is merited on this talk page (rather than my own), as these issues seem to have already been resolved, but I'll go ahead and  be bold, as the message seems to ask me (i.e., the "you"/"yours") for a reply.

I agree with most everything outlined—but the changes seem to have already been made. (I'm not sure which citations were 'lost', but I presume they've already been caught: my apologies for the extra work in correcting those and the other errors. Thanks for fixing them.) My editing session for this article is over.

However: "In today's usage which and that are both used to introduce restrictive [essential] clauses, those which cannot be removed from the context of the sentence, and which is also used to introduce nonrestrictive clauses, those which provide additional information but can be removed without the sentence falling apart. [Emphasis added]—(https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/when-to-use-that-and-which )"
 * While I do understand the "rule" about 'which'/'that', my understanding is (and had been) that the rules for this are somewhat more lenient than suggested. For example, a passage from Merriam Webster reads (with reference to "restrictive" rather than the synonym "essential"):
 * But as to the sentence in question: "that" seems just fine. I think the change has already been made?

Hopefully that resolves these issues? I have no objections to any of the suggestions made: they are all sensible and it seems they have already been implemented. Thanks again for fixing my errors; my apologies. I will try to learn from them.

As I suggested earlier in the thread: I wish I hadn't started this topic. The article seems good to go (though I'm not really experienced enough to judge), has survived my learner's attempt to help, and is in capable hands. (I apologize if I implied otherwise, in any way.) — Yogabear2020 (N.B. NoviceEditor; Talk) 03:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

"In today's usage which and that are both used to introduce restrictive clauses, those which cannot be removed from the context of the sentence, and which is also used to introduce nonrestrictive clauses, those which provide additional information but can be removed without the sentence falling apart."

Thank you for your careful reply. "In today's usage which and that are both used to introduce restrictive clauses, those which cannot be removed from the context of the sentence, and which is also used to introduce nonrestrictive clauses, those which provide additional information but can be removed without the sentence falling apart. (Emphasis added) (https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/when-to-use-that-and-which )"
 * You are very right about the use of the semicolon to divide independent clauses separated by a conjunction; I count 18 uses. I have reviewed this, as well as the WP article on semicolons, and will try to learn from my mistakes.
 * I apologize for separating those citations; thank you for catching those omissions.
 * I do understand what you mean about the use of 'which'/'that'; however, my understanding is that the rules for this are somewhat more lenient. A passage from Merriam Webster reads:
 * As for the specific sentence in question and your reference to "was" vs "has been", I see your point. However, by the time training took place, the Biltmore had been recently remodeled; the remodeling had gone on for some time; and though it (presumably) had finished by the time the SPARS began their training, it had been finished quite recently. At least this was my impression when I reviewed the dates given in the article: USCG makes decision to start center in March 1943, leases the Biltmore by May, and training begins in June. All in all, I don't think this really matters very much: whatever verb tense would be fine. If you prefer "was", I am not at all opposed.
 * I would like to mention that I would have preferred this criticism sent to my own talk page, just for niceness sake; but I am answering your points, as I think you are asking me to do so here. (I think I am he who is meant in "I look forward to your reply.") If I have read the pointers for Talk page guidelines correctly, your comments do seem to fall under the category: Discuss Edits. But I'm not sure they follow some other guidelines like: Stay on Topic; Comment on content, not on the contributor; and, most especially, Don't bite the newcomers. But I'll try to follow the advice also given: Thank you for your advice. I'll try to learn from it.

I would like to mention that I would have preferred this criticism sent to my own talk page (and I'm not even sure my responding here was appropriate?) but I appreciate the pointers and I'll try to learn from them. This was my first attempt at trying to respond to an edit request, and I clearly have much to learn. But I have read that 'newness is not an excuse for ignorance', and I apologize for mine.

Thanks for the careful points made about mistakes in the recent copy edit by the new editor: me. I'm not sure a response is merited on this talk page (rather than my own)—as these issues seem to have already been resolved—, but I'll go ahead, as the message seems to ask me to reply. So, I agree with all the suggestions made: "In today's usage which and that are both used to introduce restrictive clauses, those which cannot be removed from the context of the sentence, and which is also used to introduce nonrestrictive clauses, those which provide additional information but can be removed without the sentence falling apart. (Emphasis added) (https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/when-to-use-that-and-which )" But as to the sentence in question: "that" seems just fine. I think the change has already been made?
 * The point about the misuse of the semicolon is clear and correct: I count 18 uses of this in my recent GOCE edit. Though it seems they have already been fixed? So I'm not sure what the issue is? I have reviewed your explanation, as well as the WP article on semicolons, and will try to learn from my mistakes.
 * I apologize for separating those citations; thanks for catching those omissions. I hope my mistakes didn't create a lot of extra work. (I'm not sure which citations were separated, but it seems they have been found them and fixed.)
 * I do understand the point about 'which'/'that'; however, my understanding is (and had been) that the rules for this are somewhat more lenient than suggested. A passage from Merriam Webster reads:
 * As for the sentence in question and the reference to "was" vs "has been"; I see the point and it seems valid. However, by the time SPAR training began (in June 1943), the Biltmore had been recently remodeled (sometime between May, when the lease was made, and June); the remodeling had gone on for some time; and though it (presumably) was finished by the time the SPARS began their training, it had been finished quite recently. At least this was my impression when reading over the dates given later in the article: USCG makes decision to start center in March 1943, leases the Biltmore by May, and training begins in June. All in all, I don't think this really matters very much: whatever verb tense would be fine. If "was" seems better than "had been", I am not at all opposed.

Hopefully that resolves these issues? I have no objections to any of the suggestions made, and it seems they have already been implemented. Thanks again for fixing my errors. I will try to learn from them.

Thanks for the careful points made about mistakes in the recent copy edit by the new editor: me. I'm not sure a response is merited on this talk page (rather than my own), as these issues seem to have already been resolved, but I'll go ahead, as the message seems to ask for a reply.

I agree with all the suggestions made: "In today's usage which and that are both used to introduce restrictive clauses, those which cannot be removed from the context of the sentence, and which is also used to introduce nonrestrictive clauses, those which provide additional information but can be removed without the sentence falling apart. (Emphasis added) (https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/when-to-use-that-and-which )"
 * The point about the misuse of the semicolon is clear and correct: I count 18 uses of this in my recent GOCE edit. Though it seems they have already been fixed? So I'm not sure what the issue is? I have reviewed your explanation, as well as the WP article on semicolons, and will try to learn from my mistakes.
 * I apologize for separating those citations; thanks for catching those omissions. I hope my mistakes didn't create a lot of extra work. (I'm not sure which citations were separated, but it seems they have been found them and fixed.)
 * I do understand the point about 'which'/'that'; however, my understanding is (and had been) that the rules for this are somewhat more lenient than suggested. A passage from Merriam Webster reads:
 * But as to the sentence in question: "that" seems just fine. I think the change has already been made?


 * As for question about "was" vs "has been"; I see the point and it seems valid. However, by the time SPAR training began (in June 1943), the Biltmore had been recently remodeled (sometime between May, when the lease was made, and June); the remodeling had gone on for some time; and though it (presumably) was finished by the time the SPARS began their training, it had been finished quite recently. At least this was my impression when reading over the dates given later in the article: USCG makes decision to start center in March 1943, leases the Biltmore by May, and training begins in June. All in all, I don't think this really matters very much: whatever verb tense would be fine. If "was" seems better than "had been", I am not at all opposed.

Hopefully that resolves these issues? I have no objections to any of the suggestions made, and it seems they have already been implemented. Thanks again for fixing my errors. I will try to learn from them.

Use of the semicolon
Although terminal marks (i.e. full stops, exclamation marks, and question marks) indicate the end of a sentence, the comma, semicolon, and colon are normally sentence-internal, making them secondary boundary marks. In modern English orthography, the semicolon falls between terminal marks and the comma; its strength is equal to that of the colon.

The plural of semicolon in English is semicola or semicolons.

The most common use of the semicolon is to join two independent clauses without using a conjunction like "and". Less commonly, a semicolon may be used before a conjunctive adverb, or short transitional phrase, that joins two independent clauses; in this case, the semicolon could be replaced with a full stop. <-- ADD THIS SENT & CITATION

Semicolons are followed by a lower case letter, unless that letter would ordinarily be capitalised mid-sentence (e.g., the word "I", acronyms/initialisms, or proper nouns). In older English printed texts, colons and semicolons are offset from the preceding word by a non-breaking space, a convention still current in present-day continental French texts. Ideally, the space is less wide than the inter-word spaces. Some guides recommend separation by a hair space. Modern style guides recommend no space before them and one space after. They also typically recommend placing semicolons outside ending quotation marks, although this was not always the case. For example, the first edition of The Chicago Manual of Style (1906) recommended placing the semicolon inside ending quotation marks.

ADD EXAMPLES
Applications of the semicolon in English include:
 * Between items in a series or listing when the items contain internal punctuation, especially parenthetic commas, where the semicolons function as the serial commas for the entire series or listing. The semicolon divides the items on the list from each other, to avoid having a jumble of commas with differing functions which could cause confusion for the reader. This is sometimes called the "super comma" function of the semicolon:
 * The people present were Jamie, a man from New Zealand; John, the milkman's son; and George, a gaunt kind of man with no friends.
 * Several fast food restaurants can be found within the following cities: London, England; Paris, France; Dublin, Ireland; and Madrid, Spain.
 * Here are three examples of familiar sequences: one, two, and three; a, b, and c; first, second, and third.
 * (Fig. 8; see also plates in Harley 1941, 1950; Schwab 1947).
 * Between closely related independent clauses not conjoined with a coordinating conjunction, when the two clauses are balanced, opposed or contradictory: ADD EMPHASIS TO not
 * My wife said she would like tea; coffee would have been my choice.
 * I went to the basketball court; it was closed for cleaning.
 * I told Kate she's running for the hills; she knew I was joking.

New addition
In a list or sequence, if even one item needs its own internal comma, use of the semicolon as the separator throughout that list is justified, as shown by this example from the California Penal Code:"A crime or public offense is an act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it, and to which is annexed, upon conviction, either of the following punishments:
 * before the coordinating conjunction when independent clauses are joined, for rhetorical emphasis or, when the clauses contain commas, to improve readability.
 * As suggested by some style guides, between independent clauses that are conjoined with a coordinating conjunction, for rhetorical emphasis, or, when the first clause contains commas, to improve readability.
 * Before leaving, my husband said, to anyone who would listen, that he would like tea; but no one heard him.
 * My husband will only drink black tea. He won't try hot cocoa, Indian chai, or yerba mate; nor will he drink any kind of coffee.
 * The strangeness spreads with the birds flying in the shadow; but fear not, child, for the moon soon will lift from the sun.
 * Between clauses joined by a conjunctive adverb or short transitional phrase, to emphasize the relationship between these clauses: ADDcitation
 * My husband makes a great cup of coffee; moreover, he makes it just for me.
 * Kate went running for hours and hours; in contrast, I ran to the store.
 * The rocket exploded after reaching altitude; however, we consider this a success.
 * In rare instances, when a comma replaces a period (full stop) in a quotation, or when a quotation otherwise links two independent sentences:
 * "I have no use for this," he said; "you are welcome to it."
 * "Is this your book?" she asked; "I found it on the floor."
 * 1) Death;
 * 2) Imprisonment;
 * 3) Fine;
 * 4) Removal from office; or,
 * 5) Disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit in this State."

= Test signature = SANDBOX —  Yogabear2020 (he/him; Talk)

—  Yogabear2020 (he/him; Talk) 00:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC) —  Yogabear2020 (he/him; Talk)

= Owl's eye apppearance = COPY EDIT TAG for Owl's eye appearance

ADD DOUBLE – copy edit|date=December 2022|reason=describing the existence of sources ("In 1982, a textbook wrote a chapter..."). Please cite sources for encyclopedic facts, rather than describing the sources ADD DOUBLE  –


 * 1)  Owl's eye appearance (1764) *O

COPY EDIT TAG for Joyce Mojonnier

ADD DOUBLE WHERE SINGLE {Multiple issues| {Copy edit|for=tone|date=January 2023} {BLP sources|date=January 2023} }

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joyce_Mojonnier&oldid=1212645117

The term owl's eye appearance, also known as owl's eye sign, is used in the medical field, for diagnostic or study purposes, to describe a pattern resembling the shape of a real owl's eye. Finding the "owl's eye pattern" a patient's cell samples taken from a patient may be used to analyze symptoms in patients within the medical field. The presence of found in the study of histology, radiology, and pathology cases. The pattern is used to analyze symptoms in patients within the medical field.

=Owl's Eye Appearance=

Use in Pathology
Owl's eye appearance /has a relationship/ is strongly connected to Reed–Sternberg cells in regard to cytomegalovirus infection. Owl's eye appearance was used as an indication of the presence of the cytomegalovirus for the following case studies.

In 1982, a textbook wrote a chapter on cytomegalovirus and elaborated on its further relevance to owl's eye appearances. It was stated that the owl's eye had a characteristic of a clear halo that extended towards the cell membrane's nucleus. The cellular structure was found to be relevant to pneumonia which was caused by cytomegalovirus.

In a 1986 case study, a journal wrote that an owl's eye appearance was found in a total of 10 out of 10 patients. This was apparently due to the cytomegalovirus found in the patients that were also found to be diagnosed with AIDS. This case study involved CT scans that were used as a proposal as a way to detect the cytomegalovirus; however, the case study found that the cytomegalovirus had little relevance to the ability of CT scans.

In 1987, a 33-year-old man diagnosed with AIDS was discovered with the cytomegalovirus in his eyes. The presence of an owl's eye appearance indicated the hospital that this patient was infected with the cytomegalovirus.

In 1990, a case study journal found that the owl's eye appearance correlated with the appearance of HIV infection. This was where the case study involved the study of hospital cases and concluding that HIV plays a role in certain symptoms such as diarrhea. In another case study journal, the owl's eye appearances were found within the four patients that were observed. These patients were diagnosed with AIDS, and the presence of the owl's eye appearances proved the presence of cytomegalovirus. The confirmation of this virus was by the use of immunohistochemistry.

In a 2000 case study, it was discovered that the owl's eye appearance as a cell body was key for the histopathological understanding of the cytomegalovirus. The study found a strong relationship with a positive CMV PCR (p < 0.001). The discovery led to a result that owl's eye appearances were a strong sign for finding cytomegalovirus inside organs.

In 2006, a case study journal wrote that owls' eye signs were found in patients with compromised immune system. The purpose of this case study was to identify the features of the cytomegalovirus itself and the appearance of owl's eyes in relevance.

In 2009, a case study journal found a 44-year-old male patient to be infected with the cytomegalovirus. The presence of an eye's owl appearance found within the infected area, gave the necessary clues to confirm cytomegalovirus infection. A different case study found the appearance of an owl's eye in eighteen patients who were induced with drugs with a syndrome. The case study concluded that the cytomegalovirus disease was present, as the syndrome caused these patients to compromise their immune system. The case also found that the significant decrease of white blood cells was a factor in the preliminary stage of cytomegalovirus infection.

In 2011, a second edition textbook found that an owl's eye appearance was found inside a dead retina. It was found due to the cause of the cytomegalovirus that had been residing inside an eye causing it to transition from healthy to dead.

In 2012, a journal was written on patients with cytomegalovirus infection and was used in mapping out the owl's eye cells using their microscopic technology. The patients were two elderly men at ages 75 and 77 years old. The image of the owl's eye appearance was created using the microscope via lasers, and two-dimensional images were created using computer software. The conclusion made by the journal was that the owl's eye had relevance to cytomegalovirus infection.

In 2019, a four-year-old boy was found with acute flaccid paralysis and was found to have an owl's eye appearance. The case also spoke on the presence of enterovirus. The boy was also found to have a compromised immune system, which the enterovirus came through in infection. This case is unique due to the owl's eye appearance in relevance to the enterovirus.

Trojan Female Technique


 * item
 * item