User talk:Tenryuu/Archives/Jan–Jun 2021

GOCE Coordinator position

Resolved

 – Nominations have passed and I am now a coordinator for the GOCE. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tenryuu, Would you be interested in being nominated for a coordinator position with the Guild of Copy Editors? Myself and two other coordinators will be stepping back in 2021, and your energy, experience, and positivity would make you well-suited for the position! The duties are modest, the company enjoyable, the userbox a userbox. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Tdslk, I would be honoured to be nominated. I tried gleaning responsibilities from what current coordinators have been doing, such as overseeing drives and blitzes, and fiddling with wording in requests so that the bot catches them. Is there anything vital that I should know about? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tenryuu. I am delighted to here that! There is a list of coordinator tasks here. It might seem a little long, but you won't be responsible for all of them, especially not at first, and there will be a team of others working with you (and I'll be around to assist initially, and then perhaps intermittently after that). I've been a coordinator for five years, and I've never felt overburdened with responsibilities. Really, since I hang around the Guild so much, a lot of the tidying tasks feel almost natural. I will write a quick nomination for you over on the elections page. Cheers, Tdslk (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter

Read

Guild of Copy Editors December 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since September 2020.                  Current and upcoming events Election time: our end-of-year Election of Coordinators opened for nominations on 1 December and will close on 15 December at 23:59 (UTC). Voting opens at 00:01 the following day and will continue until 31 December at 23:59, just before Auld Lang Syne. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. December Blitz: This will run from 13 to 19 December, and will target all Requests. Sign up now. Drive and Blitz reports September Drive: 67 fewer articles had copy-edit templates by this month's close. Of the 27 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and 124 articles were claimed for the drive. October Blitz: this ran from 18 to 24 October, and focused on articles tagged for copy-edit in July and August 2020, and all Requests. Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors copy-edited at least one article. 21 articles were claimed for the blitz. November Drive: Of the 18 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and together claimed 134 articles. At the close of the drive, 67 fewer articles were in the backlog and we had dealt with 39 requests. Other news Progress report: As of 09:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 663 requests (18 from 2019) since 1 January and there were 52 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 494 (see monthly progress graph above). Annual Report for 2020: this roundup of the year's activity at the Guild is planned for publication in late January or early February. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Seasonal tidings and cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Puddleglum2.0, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Mirza Masroor Ahmad

Resolved

 – Problem appears to have been mostly solved. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding that malformed post at WP:AN3 that you commented on: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Users excessively posting about Caliphs of Islam at help desk and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#The most important correction. Also, Qadiani. EdJohnston (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I was at the Help Desk reverting the onslaught, but much appreciated! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 06:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you help me with something...

Resolved

 – Provided link to help page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Tenryuu, can you help me create an username panel like yours, with dragon, sandwich, and others. Thanks... User:Hypersonic man 11

@Hypersonic man 11: You are going to want to read the signature tutorial. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 07:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

i dont know how wikipedia works so im assuming this is the wiki form of pms

Resolved

 – Problem appears to have sorted itself out. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

hi i want to talk to you about my report thing?? i wasnt aware the 3 edit rule existed before reverting your stuff a million times, but my point still stands about their gender (see my response on the talk channel) so i will not be self reverting. is there another compromise that we could reach? Thestance (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Thestance

Thestance, C.Fred has already reverted in your place and Juhachi and Gozsei have explained more eloquently than I about why you are being reverted. Unless policies require I do so or I deem it necessary, I will not be interacting with you any further until you sincerely apologise to the editors who reverted you in regards to your baseless accusations of transphobia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 03:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Read

Thanks yes I do use visual editor merry Christmas to you to. Lexi ItsLexiM (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Re: American Revolutionary War

Abandoned

 – It's been a while, and the talk page appears to be constantly assailed with discussions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

(1) The American Revolutionary War (ARW), was de-listed from GA-status 13-years, 19-days ago. It has 6,000 visitors a day, spiking at 30,000 July 4, 2019, and 60,000 July 4 2020.

(2) The top-hat purpose is, "This article is about military actions primarily. For origins and aftermath, see American Revolution." That is, military strategy as (a) the armed conflict goals for political outcomes, and (b) operational maneuver and engagements, directly related to military effort for and against American independence.

(3) This morning, the length now stands at 100kB prose size (text only) of the wp:TOOBIG ‘limit’. Or to look at it another way it’s 15,885 words, or 80% of the ‘limit’ that would suggest ‘split-the-article’. I would like the opportunity to work with you, I am here to learn. --- Thanks in advance for any consideration, oversight or suggestions you may have. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian:, I'm only a "guest" here at Tenryuu's page, but at first blush, I'd say this is a lot of article-related info, maybe too much, for a user talk page. Wouldn't your comments maybe be more useful at the article talk page itself? The last part, about the invitation to Tenryuu to collaborate, is of course relevant here; but I wonder if you wouldn't want to include the rest of it at the article TP? Just my 2 cents; Tenryuu might not agree. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Done here for the ask. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: I was drafting a response to this revision, so some parts of my reply may appear to be out of context.

Hi, TheVirginiaHistorian, I'm honoured that you extended an invitation to me for a big article like American Revolutionary War. I generally don't have an interest in WP:MILITARY-related articles, so I trust that images and the like have been agreed upon by the group of regular editors the article has. I would be willing to copy edit the article to fix any ambiguities that there may be, make it sound better, and attempt to sculpt the article through motions passed by consensus, if any. My copy editing process generally involves asking questions (which may involve requesters going into source material) to ensure that what is being said is being conveyed properly.

However, before I accept, I will ask that the article is, for all intents and purposes, stable and agreed upon through consensus. I recently came off of an ANI thread that had conflict spill over to three different noticeboards, and a participant there mentioned off-handedly that Talk:American Revolutionary War (had?) faced similar issues. Issue #2 in your pre-edited request appears to be what I'm most concerned about; I am against becoming a part of a debate that, for example, requires an RfC or involves source disputes. In regards to WP:TOOBIG and splitting off article content, I suggest looking at which portions of the text should be trimmed and mark them or excise and place them on the talk page for further discussion. While you stated that [t]hose efforts have subsided over the path month, I would like to remain distant from the article for a minimum of 2 weeks to ensure that (non-constructive) conflicts between my edits/suggestions and disagreements are virtually nonexistent before I consider accepting or declining.

If you're just looking for a standard copyedit of the article for any interested copy editor to look over, you may be interested in submitting a request at the Guild of Copy Editors' requests page, though the article may take at least a month before being looked at due to the backlog on there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. A two-week wait-and-see seems more than reasonable, and there is still more to do.

I've just added two images at 'Aftermath-Territory', to balance the two differing Americans with two war-chiefs with very different visions for the future, 'Northwest Territory' v. American 'Old Southwest' ... Also in 'Aftermath', a work-in-progress: a paragraph for 'Post-war social groups' who were military veterans on both sides in post-war American society, especially returning Hessian veterans and their families, Tories and their families with and without confiscated property restored, unpropertied enlisted men with land grants from Congress and states, Free-blacks with land grants likewise, and also, in a wp:neutral treatment, the fate of Native tribes who had been military allies of the Congress. For instance the Cherokee were divided. The American military allies were then set adrift without Washington's protection as president. Even though the tribe was united allies of the US in the War of 1812, under 19th century "states rights" with the Georgia gold rush, they lost their territory even though their claim was upheld in the US Supreme Court, etc.

But immediately, I hope to better link terms throughout the article, trying to link places to the historical article versus the current metropolis, for instance. That requires a little seek-and-find on my part for 1607-1609 Santa Fe, Quebec, and Jamestown, for instance. Previously I know there may be three ways to back into basic background for Jamestown alone ...

Then, I want to try to figure out how to properly link ARW to the various iterations of related article and subsections among "[STATE] in the American Revolution[ary War]", "History of [STATE]#American Revolution", and best of all for map images not found in other articles, "Province of [STATE]" - a series generated for the 'original thirteen' prior to 1776 about 3 ? years ago, but still all Start-class articles. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

TheVirginiaHistorian, thanks for the wait. Most of the recent edits appear to be in the "Bibliography" section, so the article seems pretty stable. To make sure I'm understanding your request correctly, you would like my assistance to determine how to split sections off into the article, with copy editing being a secondary objective? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

ahhhhhh... thanks for double-checking.

Part I. Please run a line-by-line copyediting in two parts: most importantly the narrative without Notes; Notes are a secondary consideration. I've completed a line-by-line edit myself of both narrative and Notes, but I would like your help make sure that the article narrative of military field evolutions in battle can actually be (a) understood by the general reader who may be unfamiliar with military terminology for battles and combat, and (b) understood by the international reader with English as a second language. Specialty terminology (military argot) might be either addressed by a term-by-term Note for the definition and usage, or perhaps innovate a 'Glossary' section below the 'See also' section?

- The Notes edits is a nice-to-have that might be wrapped into the next, later phase, part.

Part II. After the article secures a B-class rating at the 'Military history Project' --- where the article is not yet taken up by a 'reviewer' at the second B-class review submittal --- I propose to dare roil the editorial waters again at ARW Talk, with (our collaborative) recommendations on how to split several article sections off for transfer to other Talk pages. Elsewhere, those page editors might integrate the information, footnotes, and HarvRef source citations presented as a total package --- at their own discretion, without ARW editors needing to negotiate various section wp:merges. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: Ah okay, so a two-parter: copyediting for clarity for the general reader and coming back to discuss and suggest page splits after another B-class article assessment. I'll start scanning the article tomorrow. I might not be entirely able to cater to an ESL reader (especially if the subject is complex enough that a few words aren't sufficient to describe it), but I'll see what I can do. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Please be aware that one of the 29 contributors plus one good-faith error, one caustically threw out an unhappy critique in an edit summary, that the narrative already looks like it was written by a seventh-grader. For me, that is the "point of the exercise". I only mean to caution you that there will be some adverse reaction to follow, though you are simply trying to follow my request in wp:good faith. Buckle up.

Nevertheless, we can aspire to a conciseness, facility and clarity in our expression of the King's English ala the exemplary and unparalleled Strunk and White in their masterful and universally acclaimed Elements of Style, but we can implement them in various and sundry ways that will be otherwise unattainable by any colonial seventh grader of spurious, dilettante and faux educational attainment whose example may be militated upon, or otherwise set before, us here. We can solemnly abjure the entire aggregated universe of four-and-five-syllable words that can be found in both vestigial English and among its countlessly acquired foreign derivatives, as well as renounce and remove any eight-or-nine-word prepositional phrases that we might happen upon in the first and early drafts of our essays at the proposed erudite composition set before us to copyedit. I am, now and forever, a most humble and obedient servant. - Yours truly, esquire, et alia, - you see, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

---

@Tenryuu:, Good start! I'll post each suggested change on Talk for discussion,shall I? Please see my start of it, I'll discontinue if you would like to follow another format.

Query: What does 'AE' in "AE, TBD" refer to? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

TheVirginiaHistorian, I'm thinking of looking at sentences (or parts of them) before the comment. I'll start structuring my thoughts on the talk page tomorrow. The "AE" is a personal note for myself so that I remember I've "already edited" the sentence. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Just for reference, here is what I had worked up as of this hour. I will 'cease and desist' until further notice. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

- SAMPLE ONLY - start

At the line-by-line edit by Tenryuu, the following items should be addressed going forward. PAGE EDITORS: Please respond with comments or counter-edits in italics following each bulleted item:

• Move brackets, move article: the Parliament's taxation policies and lack of colonial representation.

agree. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• capitalize Congress

agree. Capitalize and link to ‘Continental Congress’ Congress - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• change ‘twelve colonies responded with’ to ‘twelve colonies attended’

amend change to: ‘twelve colonial legislatures sent delegates to the First Continental Congress… - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Add term definition between dashes. When the Parliament imposed the Intolerable Acts—punitive laws for defying Great Britain—upon Massachusetts …

disagree. The definition for the Intolerable Acts is available to the reader immediately at hovering their pointer over the link. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• shorten run-on sentence at introductory clause, descriptive verb, subject-verb agreement. FROM ‘Fighting broke out on 19 April 1775 when the British garrison were sent at Boston to destroy colonial Assembly powder stores and were harassed…’ TO “Fighting broke out on 19 April 1775 when the British garrison were sent at Boston to destroy colonial Assembly powder stores and were harassed…”

Agree. Short sentences, generally; ‘ordered’ improves ‘sent’; a ‘garrison’ is singular in modern American English. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• change ‘but were repulsed’ to ‘repelled’.

disagree. I prefer this usage: a regional invasion is ‘repulsed’ versus a city attack is ‘repelled’. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• verb agreement, introductory phrase comma: FROM ‘the new British commander-in-chief, General Sir William Howe launched a counter-offensive, capturing New York City. TO ‘the new British commander-in-chief General Sir William Howe launched a counter-offensive and captured New York City.

agree and disagree: agree to verb agreement, ‘launched’ and ‘captured’; disagree: keep comma: ‘commander-in-chief, General’ to separate duty assignment from rank; agree to omitting second comma. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• copy-editor query: technical answer, ‘harassing attacks’ are removed from the enemy, your troops do not “close with and destroy” them. They are meant to be distracted and effectively slowed in their progress; it is generally exhausting and demoralizing to the enemy, and the practice may cause additional wounded to further add to the delay and demoralization of the stationary position or marching column. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• copy-editor query: “Consider maybe just linking "Saratoga campaign"?”

The evident concern is ‘blue out’ with too many adjacent links. ie: “Howe's 1777–1778 Philadelphia campaign captured the city, but the British were defeated at Saratoga in October 1777. At Valley Forge during the winter of 1777–1778, Washington built a professional army…“

Agree, a good idea at first, but the result (from multiple editors?) is too much blue. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• copy-editor query: at ‘with the important assistance of soldier-of-fortune General von Steuben’, “Unsure of "soldier-of-fortune" qualifier; "important" could be "shown, not told" more”.

Agree to this as a self-edit. It should read, ‘implimented by the Prussian émigré General von Steuben’. My rationale for 'émigré' is that he later became a resident and citizen of New York. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

- SAMPLE ONLY - end. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

update on ARW

(1) I've restored the "under construction" template under my own signature.

(2) At my post for ARW article review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests, I wrote the following:

Copyeditor Tenryuu has been invited to make a comprehensive copyedit review of the article American Revolutionary War. It has an Under Construction template box at its top as a notice to visiting editors. While under construction, the Talk page has a section for editor to add their suggestions. This procedure has been followed for article improvement with success across several Wikipedia projects.

- At the Talk:American Revolutionary War section Copyedit request, each section that is has been copyedited in an agreed upon comprehensive review has its own subsection. Immediately below each "resolved" collapsed box. The “Pending” editable section just below that gives an opportunity for interested editors to note any additional interests and concerns they may have for each section.

- In the most recently article main-space disrupted, that is found for the American Revolutionary War#Strategy and commanders section here for editor comment.

- All here are collegially invited to participate at ARW Talk in this two-week-long, on-going process, as noted for you in the large box at the top of the article for your information and use at the article Talk page. Thank you for your patience and cooperation for this limited time. [tildes]

(3) I made a reply to your notice at ARW Talk, asking for reconsideration, to go forward on the stable sections, American Revolutionary War#Revolution as civil war, American Revolutionary War#Aftermath, and American Revolutionary War#Commemorations of the Revolutionary War

(4) I have suggested to Gwillhickers (talk · contribs), for further discussion at Talk, that the offending disruption of your work flow be reverted with an informational note to the disrupting editor, to please, for this limited time, limit posting his concerns at the appropriate Talk section.

(5) I will now post the same collegial, informative note I did at the article review assessment request to Robin's Talk.

(6) Is there an alternative notice box language that prominently directs editors to direct their copyedit suggestions to Talk, rather than directly edit the page, for this limited time?

I hope you can view these steps as supportive of your efforts and 'progress' in the copyedit process. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse

Read

Remember the time you answered my teahouse question? I didn't add a space in front of the text, but I know what happened. Hayta= 13:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Tenryuu, thank you for responding to the user who had left a message on my talk page. Merry Christmas and happy holidays. I wish you have a very happy and prosperous New Year. I like your new signature. :) --Ashleyyoursmile! 03:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Ashleyyoursmile, no worries, and thanks! I'll be keeping the signature until the New Year is upon us. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 04:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It's tailor-made for the season! :) --Ashleyyoursmile! 04:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Better reference for Zonana article

Replied

Hi Tennryuu-

Your point about editing my own page is well-taken. (I totally get it having been a journalists for 18 years)

So, Here are some better and independent references. I'd be grateful if you could help by making the changes and removing the flag.

The first footnote (HHS Press release) can be replaced by this Washington Post op-ed, which confirms my position in the Clinton Administration.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/01/presidents-have-history-over-promising-vaccines-heres-why-thats-problem/

I believe EHF.org issued an announcement of my appointment as a Fellow, but I fear that would be considered a press relesase. There is also this article from a New Zealand newspaper that describes me as a Fellow:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/123600320/overseas-entrepreneurs-supercharged-kiwis-plan-to-rid-niue-of-hepatitis-b-and-c VictorFZo (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Finally, the footnote about co-founding the NLGJA (currently attributed to HHS press release) can more directly be attributed to NLGJA website itself:

https://www.nlgja.org/blog/1990/08/timeline-nlgja-founded/

Does this help? I realize I haven't addressed the threshold issue -- editing my own bio -- but if I don't do it, who would? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorFZo (talk • contribs) 18:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

VictorFZo, I usually don't deal with adding content like this as I do not believe myself to be versed in determining the reliability of sources like op-eds. I suggest making an edit request on Talk:Victor Zonana (making sure to use the {{request edit}} template to catch the eye of any interested editors that are managing the edit request backlog). The first and third links I provided give more information in how to formulate an edit request, but a request taker generally wants to see the content that should be removed or added, the reason behind the change, and reliable sources that support the proposed change. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Lighthouses and military

Read

Hi you and other Wikipedians may be interested to take part in the discussions at Talk:Lighthouses in Hong Kong, Talk:Military of Hong Kong and Talk:List of lighthouses in Macau. 219.76.24.203 (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Your help desk question

Resolved

 – Question answered a while back; appreciate the checkup. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Did you ever find an answer to this question? Seems like WP:VPT would be the place to ask it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee, thanks for checking in with that question. Once it got archived at the help desk I asked over at VPT where it got answered.. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Good. You seem like someone who would know that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Leopold Trepper

Replied

Hi @Tenryuu: Thanks for adding in those invisible clarifications needed. I will get right on it. Good work. scope_creep^Talk 22:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Scope creep, you're very welcome, and much appreciated. I would've preferred to keep Jean Claude Spaak as just Spaak, but his wife and sibling were mentioned. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Help with copy-editing on article for FA

Resolved

 – Finished doing a copyedit. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I'm currently undertaking a peer review for the video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered in the process of getting it to FA. Fellow contributor ImaginesTigers has been over some of the prose already but recommended your work as a copy-editor in the hope that you might be able to further assist on it (I know he pinged you early today but he hadn't had a response)? If you could kindly spend some time looking over the article and give feedback on it it would be much appreciated. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikibenboy94, I'll get back to you sometime tomorrow. Odd-numbered months are a little busier for me due to backlog drives, but I'll see what I can do. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikibenboy94, I've had a quick scan of the article and I can make a few tweaks and ask for clarification tomorrow if that works for you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good Tenryuu. I appreciate the help. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Interview request

Resolved

 – Answered interview questions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Tenryuu!

My name is Daniel, and I’m a senior at Harvard University currently writing an undergraduate thesis about Wikipedia. I’m particularly interested in how the Wikipedia community decides what facts are relevant and/or notable enough to warrant inclusion on a particular article — especially in regards to articles on contentious topics.

I noticed that you’ve been quite active editing the “COVID-19 pandemic” article over the past few months. So, would you mind if I send you a few questions (via email or right here) about your work editing that article, and the approach that you take? I’d really love to hear from you.

Thanks so much! --Dalorleon (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dalorleon, and thanks for the request. I'd be willing to answer questions here, though I should let you know in advance that I generally don't edit the articles proper; I usually voice my opinions about certain aspects of articles on their associated talk pages. The only COVID-19-related article I regularly edit is COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia.

Because of talk page guidelines in regards to other people's comments, I would not be allowed to interweave my responses with your questions unless you added a signature after each one. Were you thinking of a quick Q&A format or more of a discussion of each question? It might be visually easier to create a table if it's the former. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your response, Tenryuu! I'd still love to hear from you, even if you don't actively edit the main "COVID-19 pandemic" page.

I'm not very good at Wikipedia formatting, so I've posted my questions in list-form below; let me know if you need me to clarify any of them. You can reformat my questions / your response however you see fit. Or, if it's easier, you can email your answers to danielleonard@college.harvard.edu.

1) How long have you been editing Wikipedia? And how long have you been an active editor of the “COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia” Wikipedia article?

2) When adding content to the “COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia” Wikipedia article, how do you decide what facts are relevant / notable enough to warrant inclusion?

3) When removing content from the “COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia” Wikipedia article, how do you decide what facts are irrelevant / non-notable enough to warrant deletion?

4) Are there any particular Wikipedia policy / guidelines pages that you rely on to guide your editing? (Like “Wikipedia:Editing policy,” “Wikipedia:Writing better articles,” etc.)

5) Do you feel that Wikipedia’s “official” editing guidelines are helpful, or do you generally ignore them? If you prefer forging your own path, do you feel that Wikipedia offers you that flexibility?

6) Has adding or deleting content from the “COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia” Wikipedia article ever brought you into conflict with another Wikipedian? If so, how were those disputes resolved?

7) Do you identify more as an inclusionist, a deletionist, or neither / something else?

Thanks again for agreeing to help my research! Feel free to weigh in on anything I didn’t specifically ask in regards to your editing practices. I’m primarily curious to learn about what factors you consider when deciding what content ought to be added / removed from Wikipedia articles.

Finally, if I do include your responses in my thesis, would you prefer to remain completely anonymous, or can I include your username? I really appreciate it! --Dalorleon (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Questions from Dalorleon	Responses from Tenryuu
How long have you been editing Wikipedia? And how long have you been an active editor of the “COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia” Wikipedia article?	I created this account many years ago, but didn't start editing on a more daily basis until the start of last year. I started checking in more frequently on the "COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia" article sometime in late October/early November 2020 after someone mentioned that it hadn't seen many updates to its timeline.
When adding content to the “COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia” Wikipedia article, how do you decide what facts are relevant / notable enough to warrant inclusion?	I generally don't add content to articles, particularly those related to COVID-19 due to the MEDRS content guideline, which stresses that only certain sources (like literature or systematic reviews) should be cited from. At the beginning of the pandemic I did add the first few weeks of new cases and deaths in the article because at the time they were notable. Now that it's become commonplace I've stopped.
When removing content from the “COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia” Wikipedia article, how do you decide what facts are irrelevant / non-notable enough to warrant deletion?	I have to think "if I include this, how many more similar events would have to be added, and would that dilute its presumed notability?" There were a few times that I deleted items on "record-breaking number of new cases/deaths" because while news articles do print them out, the points are chosen arbitrarily and can easily lose their record-breaking status with further developments.
Are there any particular Wikipedia policy / guidelines pages that you rely on to guide your editing? (Like “Wikipedia:Editing policy,” “Wikipedia:Writing better articles,” etc.)	I primarily copy edit, so I usually refer to the Manual of Style for proper formatting and the occasional English variant check for articles written in US English, UK English, or other.
Do you feel that Wikipedia’s “official” editing guidelines are helpful, or do you generally ignore them? If you prefer forging your own path, do you feel that Wikipedia offers you that flexibility?	I follow them, though I don't necessarily agree with all of them.
Has adding or deleting content from the “COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia” Wikipedia article ever brought you into conflict with another Wikipedian? If so, how were those disputes resolved?	It has. Another editor had a problem with how I worded things, which I fixed when additional sources were added.
Do you identify more as an inclusionist, a deletionist, or neither / something else?	I do copy editing, and while most of my edits are focused on altering existing sentences, sometimes I come across content that isn't sourced or appropriate for the encyclopedia and delete that.

@Dalorleon: I think that should be everything. I do not mind if my username is used for your thesis. Good luck! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your replies, Tenryuu! They're extremely helpful. I'll let you know if I have any follow-up questions. For now, I wish you the best of luck! --Dalorleon (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Editing news 2021 #1

Read

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Reply tool

Completion rates for comments made with the Reply tool and full-page wikitext editing. Details and limitations are in this report.

The Reply tool is available at most other Wikipedias.

• The Reply tool has been deployed as an opt-out preference to all editors at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
• It is also available as a Beta Feature at almost all Wikipedias except for the English, Russian, and German-language Wikipedias. If it is not available at your wiki, you can request it by following these simple instructions.

Research notes:

• As of January 2021, more than 3,500 editors have used the Reply tool to post about 70,000 comments.
• There is preliminary data from the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedia on the Reply tool. Junior Contributors who use the Reply tool are more likely to publish the comments that they start writing than those who use full-page wikitext editing.[1]
• The Editing and Parsing teams have significantly reduced the number of edits that affect other parts of the page. About 0.3% of edits did this during the last month.[2] Some of the remaining changes are automatic corrections for Special:LintErrors.
• A large A/B test will start soon.[3] This is part of the process to offer the Reply tool to everyone. During this test, half of all editors at 24 Wikipedias (not including the English Wikipedia) will have the Reply tool automatically enabled, and half will not. Editors at those Wikipeedias can still turn it on or off for their own accounts in Special:Preferences.

New discussion tool

Screenshot of version 1.0 of the New Discussion Tool prototype.

The new tool for starting new discussions (new sections) will join the Discussion tools in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures at the end of January. You can try the tool for yourself.[4] You can leave feedback in this thread or on the talk page.

Next: Notifications

During Talk pages consultation 2019, editors said that it should be easier to know about new activity in conversations they are interested in. The Notifications project is just beginning. What would help you become aware of new comments? What's working with the current system? Which pages at your wiki should the team look at? Please post your advice at mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

ANI - Dabaqabad

Resolved

 – Fixed goof. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tenryuu, I noticed you marked your comment in a thread on the admin board as a non-admin closure. I guess you meant to use template NAcmt for non-admin comment, and accidentally used Nac for non-admin closure. Cheers, NJD-DE (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Njd-de, thanks for pointing that out. I must have forgot that extra c in nacc. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Now you taught me a new, and shorter form for the non-admin comment. Didn't know that nacc works as well. Thanks! NJD-DE (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I've mentioned you at an ANI case

Resolved

 – Explained edit summary. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The thread is WP:ANI#Red link User:Encyclopedia45 insists upon disrupting the "personal life" sections of popular women by claiming that they are not notable because they aren't men or something nonsensical like that, and it relates to your edit summary in this edit at Emma Roberts. —C.Fred (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Efraín Ruales

Resolved

 – Decision made. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, looks like a prime fuckup here. I had this article open in a tab from last night and I just copyedited it without noticing that you'd already done so a couple hours ago. Does that mean we just split credit for it in the GoCE drive and both get 0.5 articles? jp×g 02:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@JPxG: Eh, give yourself full credit for the article this time; the drive's almost over and I don't feel like fiddling with counts. Just remember in the future to get rid of the {{copy edit}} tag so that other editors don't see it remaining in the category. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Copyediting request

Resolved

 – Copyedit request complete. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey. If you have time would you be able to take a look at Koh Tao murders? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, I can give it a look later in the day. It appears that you're still working on the article, so I'll just do some cursory tweaks on it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I was just trying to play around with the prose. Content wise I think it’s mostly complete on the available information I could find. Other than perhaps more that I can add to background. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I've gone and copyedited. It was pretty straightforward, though some relatively significant changes were made, like changing "forensic evidence" to "forensic investigation" in Experts have considered the forensic investigation to have been incompetent, and to have possibly framed the suspects, and "by" to "for" in Taupin was ultimately not allowed to testify for the defence [...] I didn't touch too much on tenses, but some sentences may be unintentionally asserting that events or policies that happened aren't occuring anymore, like Irregular Burmese migrant workers were required to register with the police in an attempt to prevent bribery suggesting that the workers had to register in the past, but not today.
While it isn't a copyediting issue, you may want to use something like a footnote to explain a naming discrepancy—some sources refer to one of the convicted as Wai Phyo, but others, like this TIME article used in the article, appear to refer to him as Win Zaw Htun. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Tenryuu! Those changes look good to me. I've looked over tenses, some are unclear in sources so I'm not sure there's a way around it for the article prose. Possibly rewording it like "The mayor enacted rules to [...]"? Re the names: will add a note to that effect. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

​Possibly rewording it like "The mayor enacted rules to [...]"? That works. Alternatively, you could use the present perfect (e.g., "he has done") or present perfect continuous (e.g., "Irregular Burmese migrant workers have been required [...]") tenses to give the information more current relevance; I don't believe it'd be considered WP:SYNTH to do so, especially if there aren't any more recent reliable sources used to assert that the laws/policies have since been rescinded. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Email to WP:OVERSIGHT

Replied

Hello,

Thanks for reply in Helpdesk to my message 'IP address and User name'. Can you please route me how to email? Or what action I need to do --IL68 (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

IL68, the message boxes at the top of WP:OVERSIGHT provide links to email them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxhela_Peristeri

Replied

hey you,I am new here and I need your help.

my name is Aneglos-Philip Mitsis from Cologne /Germany. I have a huge problem with an editor/administrator(?). His Name is laof2017. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iaof2017) I have added documented information to an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxhela_Peristeri) that her father is of Greek origin and this is also proven with the link to an interview with her:

https: // eurovisionfun. com / en / 2020/12 / anxhela-peristeri-karma-will-remain-in-albanian-for-eurovision-video /

The administrator / editor laof 2017 deleted the change! That was an important information about the singer's biography !! Please help me!

he wrote me that I had to attach proofs in albanian language allthogh I wrote in the englisch version of wikipedia! He attacked also with inappropriate words in german,what you can see in his disskussion site! He accuses me to be another person,to whom he had in the past a conflict. I gave him my full name and offerd all my data to proove that I am new here and have nothing to do with the person he thoughst I am

I feel desperate,pleas help me..whta can I do..?

my regards A.Ph. Mitsis

--Angelos-Philip M. (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Angelos-Philip M., see my response at the Teahouse. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey can you please assist me in creating an article

Read

I need help creating a basic article for a popular Canadian punk band but I seem to be retarded when it comes to using wiki Islandpunk69 (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Article splitting

Resolved

 – Recommendation given. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Would it be possible to split the article about the COVID-19 pandemic in Chile? One editor there has already removed some templates because he is claiming that they cause the article to break. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@LSGH: Heyo. You're probably going to want to discuss that with the active editors on that page. Normally my opinion is that the template that was removed, {{COVID-19 pandemic data/Chile medical cases chart}}, should stay as it would be useful for casual readers to get a sense of how the disease has progressed, but taking a look at the PEIS it consumes (1,047,809/2,097,152 bytes or almost half of a page's allotted PEIS), I'm not surprised it was chosen to be removed.

That being said, doing a quick analysis of the page has led me to a current PEIS usage of 1,917,891/2,097,152, or 91%. Most of the statistics should go into another page, as this problem is going to come back eventually after a few weeks or months as those templates will cause that extra bloat. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Both the removed chart and the statistics would likely just grow in size indefinitely. I'll try to know who among the active editors can engage in such a discussion; one of them had last edited his own talk page more than 10 years ago. This is a good approach, because I used to see an unrelated editor doing similar splits in that topic area without discussing first. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 06:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

HIPP

Read

Hi I see that you have helped me once and I came to ask you if you want to be on my HIPP page (more info on my User page). AnonymousMeh (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi

Read

Hello. Help copy edit. Thank you. Vnosm (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)