User talk:Yogabear2020/sandbox

talk to me tag added to Talk:Sans (Undertale)

need to add double curly brackets GOCE|user=Yogabear2020|date=April 5–12, 2024

Need help resolving issues on recent GOCE edit
Hi! I'm new to the GOCE editing process and need help diffusing tension with another user. Let me know if I should look elsewhere for help, like the Teahouse.

Short version: I recently attempted to edit the ARTICLE page, for March drive, taking on a GOCE request that mentioned "possible ACN". Short version: resulted in tension with main contributor, Username, which can clearly be seen in the last post to Talk page. Help? Advice? Thanks.

I just want to diffuse the tension, I'll take whatever blame is due, and move on. What should I do next? (Maybe some of my unneeded comments could just be taken off the talk page?)

Because of RL, I may not reply back to you very quickly; but thanks in advance for your help.

Long version: (if it's helpful, or just skip, it's evident on talk page) In creating a mess, my efforts included making suggestions to talk page, like for future efforts for improvement, which I see now was probably perceived as biting and anti-ACN. I also made a list of my editing efforts, which probably wasn't needed. (And also seen as biting?)

Following my edits/talk page comments, the main contributor, Username, made a number of replies, I replied in kind: usually as apology or explanation to diffuse. I also posted to his talk page, explaining that I am a new editor, and thanking him for his patience. But the replies, postings to the talk page, and my responses only seem to have created more concerns and confusion, escalating in his latest post to ARTICLE talk page. I had added, hoping-to-be-helpful, a list of my "errors" that still needed to be corrected (from the editing), in response to him pointing them out: this resulted in more confusion.

I'm very sure I did a number of things wrong, or could have done them better (like not posting so much on the talk page after editing it): feel free to let me know. But I'm more concerned, right now, with easing the mind of the concerned user. Thanks, again. — SENT 15:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

ADVICE FROM Jonesey95 (copied from original)
 * Without digging too much into the details, my advice as someone who has gotten into this situation in the past is to be a bit less involved. Do your copy edit, leave a few comments, and unwatch the page. Often, people who really care about the page will (a) get worked up about small style changes and (b) respond back-and-forth about copy-editing issues and take up a lot of your time. That said, Later, their training took place at Palm Beach, Florida, in the Biltmore Hotel that was remodeled for use as a training center. is wrong IMO; "Hotel, which had been" would have been better. It's not worth fighting about though. I don't know who chose that wording, or who chose the incorrect (again IMO) semicolons in constructions like The training covered instruction on subjects such as: USCG activities and organization; personnel; and current events. Commas would have been better there. If you chose those two constructions, take a look at a few grammar and usage guides on that/which and semicolon/comma usage. Again, though, I would not get involved or try to fight; let an impartial reviewer review the prose. Move on to more copy editing. – USERNAME 19:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Miniapolis, I hope you don't mind me posting here. Hi, thanks for your copy-editing work, I'm sorry you had difficulties with this article but I'm glad to see you made extensive use of the talk page. While it seems easy to outsiders, copy-editing is a skilled task and even experienced editors make mistakes, so learn from this but don't let it put you off. If you notice yourself making daft mistakes, it's best to quickly fix them yourself with a minimum of fuss and take a break; you can always come back to it when you're rested. Revert yourself if you need to; no-one will think any worse of you. If I feel I can't properly copy-edit an article, of if my efforts are being reverted, I'll generally revert to the pre-c/e version if necessary, mark the request with Abandoned, add a short note giving my reasons and move on to the next one; life's too short and there are plenty more requests in the sea. Also, you can always ask one of us and we'll advise you if we can. I hope you'll continue to copy-edit articles. Good luck and cheers, USERNAME2 20:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

TOPIC ON TALK PAGE added April 7, 2024
Small suggestions for punctuation cleanup

Started a new thread in response to previous which was getting long and seemed to be drifting from the topic mentioned in heading.

In the clear light of day, I went back over the article and found a few occurrences of semicolon used between independent clauses connected by a conjunction that still remain, as well as other semicolon-related potential errors. These errors are probably all my own, from my previous editing session, as discussed in the thread above. As due diligence, I list them below; I haven't changed them, leaving this up to consensus from others. Again, apologies for any errors I may have made in my previous editing session.

I have included suggestions for from this to this instead (whether or not these are useful, and I'm sure there might be other fixes).


 * In the section The director:
 * "She retired from the USCG in January 1946; and, by June of the same year, the SPARs were demobilized." (which could be "January 1946, and, by June" ?)


 * In the section General recruitment efforts:
 * "SPAR recruitment information was sometime disseminated along with WAVES publicity materials; but it became increasingly apparent that the job of selling the SPARS would include selling the USCG itself." (which could become "publicity materials, but it became")


 * In the section Assignments:
 * "But in late 1944, as the war was nearing an end, Congress lifted the prohibition; and this allowed SPARs to serve overseas." (which could become "lifted the prohibition, and this allowed" or "prohibition: this")


 * In the section Legacy:
 * "She had a complement of six officers and 74 enlisted in 1945; and later, in 1966, a complement of four officers, two warrant officers, and 47 enlisted." (which could become "in 1945, and later, in 1966," I think?)

There is also an occurrence of semicolons used in series (for a list) with one semicolon missing (I think):
 * In the section Women of the SPARS:
 * "Some became active nurse's aides or rolled bandages for the Red Cross, others donated blood to blood banks; some visited service men in convalescent hospitals; and others collected gifts for the men overseas." (which should be "Red Cross; others donated" ?)

Also perhaps two misplaced semicolons (where just a comma is needed?):
 * In the section Background:
 * "directed the Coast Guard to operate as part of the Navy; placing it under the supervision" (which could be "Navy, placing it" ? or "Navy, which placed it" ?)


 * In the section Post–World War II:
 * "In 1973, Congress enacted legislation ending the Women's Volunteer Reserve; allowing women to be officially integrated into active duty or the reserve." (which could be "Volunteer Reserve, allowing women" or "Reserve; this allowed women" or just a colon/full-stop between?)

I'll let consensus decide what is appropriate (so I don't need a ping): I don't feel comfortable making the changes myself (although they are probably my own previous errors). Thanks for your tolerance, and my apologies for the extra work. I hope this helps the overall effort without coming across as biting. — Yogabear2020 (N.B. NoviceEditor; Talk) 13:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

To add to list of semicolons
As follow up re: "Punctuating independent clauses" and the question of 'semicolons and their use with coordinating conjunctions'. My previous language may have been too strong: I'm not sure the errant semicolon–conjunction combos were necessarily "errors"—at least not all of them—but rather some might be a more relaxed approach to style? I don't object to the strict "rule" barring semicolons before coordinating conjunctions. But I did find support for "conjunctionitis" with certain s-colons: it is found here from the University of the South in Sewanee, Tenn. (Potentially not the most authoritative source, yes.) I mention it because, upon further review, some of the items in the list above—of "errors"—do, in fact, resemble the example given at the Sewanee guide; thus they may benefit from the use of a conjunction. This guide suggests:
 * "While semicolons, colons, or dashes can connect two independent clauses by itself, you can also throw in a conjunction to make the relationship between the two independent clauses clearer. "A sadness hangs in the plants that are dying for the winter; but take heart, young one, for they will bud anew in the spring."
 * In this case, the conjunction 'but' makes it clear that the relationship between these two clauses is one of contrast. You could use a comma instead of a semi-colon with the conjunction to make a grammatically correct sentence. Rhetorically, however, the semicolon puts in a little more delay that works well in the context of the sentence."

It could be argued, I suppose, that items 2 & 3 on the list of 'errors' might actually be helped by a semicolon―or, of course, they could by split into two sentences, etc.—but I'll leave it up to others to decide.

The semicolon–coord-conjunction issue (for item 2) might also be resolved be replacing the coord-conjunc with a conjunctive adverb (+comma, such as "however,"), as suggested by the U.S. Dept. of Energy's NREL. Here, they offer the following sentences:
 * "We used the Schartz-Metterklume method in the experiment; however, the problems with this method are well known."
 * "Energy requirements are often expressed in quads, or quadrillion Btu; therefore, this report describes the number of quads supplied annually by each option."

Thus, 2 could go from "SPAR recruitment information was sometime disseminated along with WAVES publicity materials; but it became increasingly apparent..." to "WAVES publicity materials; however, it became increasingly apparent..." Once more, not an authoritative source, but certainly a reputable one. I really don't want to impose my own style choices; no need for an edit war and I'm done with my previous editing session; so I'll let others decide how to resolve any grammar issues as they see fit: it's just an option for a 'fix'. Again, my apologies if I introduced any errors into the mix—sentence level or otherwise. I'm doing my best to contribute to fixing them, since that seemed to be the topic (I think) introduced earlier by "rules of the road": fixing errors made by previous editing session. This, again, is due diligence.

Reply to "rules for the road"
Greetings! In response to your recent comments (about "rules of the road") on the SPARS talk page, I thank you for making them: they were helpful in my learning process, as a new editor. All the same, I wanted to make some comments in return, to explain my experience as a new editor:

Use of the semicolon:
 * Your point is well taken on the use of the semicolon. The "rule" you mention is clearly outlined on the WP article semicolon. I confess to my lack of knowledge about the logic of standard use: I was too lazy in my application. Thanks for bringing it to my attention: I will endeavor to apply it.
 * However, I have found at least one writing guide that does allow for adding a conjunction after a semicolon, even when used to separate independent clauses (as here); but I have no objections to your suggested usage.
 * I did a quick search of the SPARS article and found a few non-standard semicolons that still remain: some are related to the conjunction issue, others more like typos. I've posted a list of these errant (or missing) semicolons on the talk page; I hope that helps to locate them. Anyone should feel free to change or add them; I did not change them myself. (N.B. I would point out that some of these 'errant semicolons' might fit the more lenient approach to allowing, where appropriate, a 'semicolon to be followed by a conjunction'; but I leave that up to consensus.)
 * After more reflection, I posted another set of suggestions (on the SPARS talk page) for resolving my errant semicolons. I hope it is helpful and not just clogging up the page. Consensus may decide on how/if to use them.
 * I know that ignorance is not the best excuse—but WP does suggest it is a forgivable one, at least in the case of newcomers.) I certainly was ignorant—but also a new editor.

Paragraph splitting
 * I apologize profusely for losing those citations; it seems someone (you) may have fixed the issue. (I wasn't sure, as the specific examples weren't given.) If I can help to find them, let me know; but it seems to have been covered.

Which vs. that and had been vs. was
 * While many writing guides support the "rule" you cite for 'which vs. that', I have found other guides—such as this page at Merriam Webster—that do allow more flexible use.
 * In the sentence about 'the remodeling of the Biltmore', the use of 'was' is most certainly correct: it was finished.
 * My use of "had been" was based on the dates indicated in the section Enlisted training. If I understand correctly, the training and remodeling nearly overlapped; so I felt "had been (recently) remodeled" seemed sensible. I made a  good faith adjustment. However, the use of "was remodeled" is certainly fine.
 * All in all, I don't think the verb issue (or the 'which'/'that') really matters very much, in terms of the idea being clear for the reader. Also, I believe that the original had already been restored? But I have no objection, or aversion, to my edit having been changed.
 * More important, to me, is your other point—that the first version of the sentence was already correct. This is a great lesson for me, and something I will try to keep in mind, if I continue editing in the future. I think I need to be better at leaving well enough alone. (This whole response may be a case in point.) I am learning that I don't have to tweak everything, especially when ideas are already written well and written clearly. My edit wasn't merited, as the original was already correct; so I apologize for the work required to revert it. It was done in  good faith, but it wasn't necessary.

This response I probably didn't need to send this response. But I was a bit surprised that your "rules of the road" comments weren't sent to my user page, and instead were placed on the SPARS talk page. So I went to the Talk Page Guidelines article for help understanding what should go into a talk page discussion.
 * I noted the advice to discuss edits, which your comments did do. And you are right: I did make mistakes in editing SPARS.
 * But I also note another suggestion for talk page discussion that advises: "Comment on content, not on the contributor" and "Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." (I did note the use of "you" and "your" in your "rules of the road", as in "you changed it to".)
 * I'm not sure if your "rules of the road" quite fit the overall topic: "On the subject of potential ACN review". But it is a fairly broad topic.
 * (In retrospect, I have also learned that my adding this topic to the talk page was potentially problematic in the first place, and the points I made were probably not very relevant to the topic anyway. I can also see that they (I) sounded very critical and potentially biting.)

I am new to this: the editing for SPARS was my first attempt to respond to a GOCE Request. (And my second attempt at editing a whole article.) I very much appreciate your comments about my not-so-careful-editing, as they helped me to see gaps in my knowledge.
 * Assuming good faith, I think you may have just been replying to my request—on your talk page—for any response you had to my edits, so I could learn how to improve. And your comments were helpful: I have learned. So thanks: a lot of food for thought.

I wish these comments had been framed differently—or just sent to my own talk page. They didn't seem to be about building consensus about edits for the article: they were a bit more biting (at least in the context of that talk page). I would just like to emphasize, again: I am a newcomer, and human, and we all (I think) make mistakes. (As a gentle reminder: this last truism is topic 18 on a list from the Talk Page Guidelines.)

Thank you for your help in my learning process. Despite any appearance to the contrary, I will continue to ruminate on, and will endeavor to apply, the "rules" you have brought to my attention. In short, I really enjoyed the article; I will try to learn from my mistakes; and it helped to be able to make them. My apologies for the very lengthy "reply". (No response is necessary.) —

Response to SPARS
In response to your recent comments (about "rules of the road") on the SPARS talk page, I thank you for making them: they were helpful. All the same, I wanted to make some comments in return, to explain my experience as a new editor:

Misuse of the semicolon: Paragraph splitting Which vs. that had been vs. was
 * I have found at least one writing guide that does allow for adding a conjunction after a semicolon, even when the semicolon is used to separate independent clauses (as here); but your point is well taken. The "rule" you mention is clearly outlined on the WP article semicolon. I confess to my lack of knowledge about this: thanks for bringing it to my attention.
 * Not important, but I was more focused dashes and commas. (I may also have been unduly influenced by Arthur Conan Doyle: his narrator Watson uses them frequently, though correctly, at least in the novel I am currently reading.)
 * I know that ignorance is not the best excuse. (Though WP does suggest it is a forgivable one, at least in the case of newcomers.) I certainly was ignorant.
 * In searching the current incarnation of SPARS article, I found a few of these errors still remain. I made a list of these and posted to the talk page, but did not correct them; I'll leave those decisions up to you. I hope this will be helpful in fixing any errors I may have caused that still remain.
 * I apologize profusely for losing those citations; it seems you may have fixed the issue. (I wasn't sure, as the specific examples weren't given.) If I can help to find them, let me know; but you seem to have this covered.
 * Not important, but I struggled a lot with this aspect of editing, and have learned that I must take more care. (And perhaps just avoid so much splitting.)
 * While many writing guides support the "rule" you cite for 'which vs. that', I have found other guides—such as this page at Merriam Webster—that do allow more flexible use.
 * The use of 'was', in the sentence about 'the remodeling of the Biltmore', is certainly correct: it was finished.
 * I think my use of "had been" was based on the dates indicated in Enlisted training. If I understand correctly, 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, perhaps not entirely.
 * (At least this was my impression when I attempted to edit the article: USCG makes decision to start center in March 1943, leases the Biltmore by May, and training begins in June, with remodeling happening around this. It certainly seemed like a continuation of activity.)

This response
 * So "had been", as a verb indicating a 'recent activity', also seems merited: at the point training began, it had recently been remodeled (and may have continued for a time, though maybe not).
 * All in all, I don't think this really matters very much: whatever verb tense would be fine, in terms of being clear to the reader. And I believe the original had already been restored? So consensus wasn't really needed (or asked for?).
 * However, I think I need to learn how to better leave well enough alone. (This whole response may be a case in point.) Your other point—that the first version of the sentence was already correct—seems, to me, something I very much need to keep in mind, if I continue editing in the future. I am learning that I don't have to tweak everything, especially when ideas are already written well and written clearly. My edit wasn't merited—the original was already correct—and I apologize for the work required to revert it.
 * I probably didn't need to send this response, but I was a bit surprised that your "rules of the road" comments weren't sent to my user page, and were placed on the SPARS talk page.
 * I have taken a look at the Talk page guidelines and note the advice to  discuss edits, which you have. And I did make mistakes in editing SPARS.
 * But I also note another suggestion that advises: "Comment on content, not on the contributor" and "Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating."
 * The topic of the thread was "On the subject of potential ACN review". (In retrospect, I have learned that this was probably not a very useful topic heading, and that the points I made were probably not very relevant to the topic. I wish I hadn't made them. I can also see that they sounded very critical and potentially biting.) But I'm not sure how your added comments, about the editing mistakes, were relevant to the topic, however broad, of that thread.

I am new to this: the editing for SPARS was my first attempt to respond to a GOCE Request. (And my second attempt to GOCE edit an article.) I very much appreciate your comments about my not-so-careful-editing—which I asked for—as they helped me to see gaps in my knowledge. Your comments are very, very useful; I will keep them in mind as I try to learn how to edit, and how and when and where (and if) to post any comments or suggestions.

Thank you for your help in my learning process. I really enjoyed the article; I will try to learn from my mistakes; and it helped to be able to make them. (No response is necessary.) —