User talk:TheRealSerenaJoy: Difference between revisions

Welcome to my talk page. Please feel free to leave me a message if you have questions with any of my contributions. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 02:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiProject_Politics_and_government (
  project page, talk page
  )
• WikiProject_United_States_History (project page, talk page)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
4		Brest Challenger (talk)	Add sources
3		Morocco Tennis Tour – Mohammedia (talk)	Add sources
11,619		talk )	Add sources
296		2020 WTA Tour (talk)	Add sources
4		ZS-Sports China International Challenger (talk)	Add sources
4		Pavel Chekhov (tennis) (talk)	Add sources
1,484		Martina Navratilova (talk)	Cleanup
669		WTA Tour records (talk)	Cleanup
7		talk )	Cleanup
3		Batman Cup (talk)	Expand
438		Women's Tennis Association (talk)	Expand
3		Bukhara Challenger (talk)	Expand
3		University of Nebraska Curling Guild (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
2,022		Steffi Graf (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
34		Drop shot (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
2		Raymond Tawiah Abraham (talk)	Merge
53		Star Premium (talk)	Merge
52		Direct DNA damage (talk )	Merge
9		2019 ABN AMRO World Tennis Tournament – Singles (talk)	Wikify
7		talk )	Wikify
20		talk )	Wikify
6		Salah Labaki (talk)	Orphan
3		Ariel Aranda (talk)	Orphan
2		Aleksei Arkhangelsky (talk)	Orphan
47		Alex Molčan (talk)	Stub
4		Monterrey Challenger (talk)	Stub
4		BFD Energy Challenger (talk)	Stub
4		Columbus Challenger (talk)	Stub
3		China International Suzhou (talk)	Stub
8		Dan Added (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andra Ursuța, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

— The Most Comfortable Chair 16:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, The Most Comfortable Chair. I appreciate your time. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 22:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheRealSerenaJoy, welcome to the Guild of Copy Editors. Just a note about the

Thanks for the suggestion

Baffle_gab - I agree 100% I will move my comment to user's page. Wasn't thinking! The Real Serena Joy^Talk 15:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for that. Another note; please use {{Done}} rather than {{Completed}} at the Requests page, otherwise the archiving bot won't archive your finished requests. You should, however, use 'Completed' to log your work at drive and blitz pages. You can always contact me or one of the other GOCE coordinators and editors at the Guild's main talk pages. I've fixed the templates for you. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you

Baffle_gab I was originally was using done, then somewhere I saw completed so I thought that was the one to use. I'll go fix my entries as I did a bunch of shorter articles yesterday. (But I see someone beat me to it.) Thanks again. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 01:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

No problem; you should also register your May copy-edits at your section on the Drive page before we close it (or at latest 24 hours after closing) so we can calculate your barnstar awards; there are brief instructions here. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,

user:Baffle_gab1978 I did go and update the counts; I was trying to do it after completing each article so I don't forget. :) Thanks again!The Real Serena Joy^Talk 19:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cómplices, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mexican.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheRealSerenaJoy

Thank you for creating Raritan Yacht Club.

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: Thanks, I appreciate you taking a moment to comment!The Real Serena Joy^Talk 18:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I mean this with the utmost respect (I very much appreciate good-faith copyeditors), but many of the changes you've made to the

In addition to the concerns by @Throast above there is also a question by @Popoki35, here, that needs to be addressed. Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia and, specifically, your attention to this matter. --ARoseWolf 12:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Throast, I thank you for taking the time to make comments, but I have to disagree with your assessment. I fixed many typos, punctuation errors and tweaked sentence structure improvements to remove things like lacking verb tense agreement, limiting overuse of parenthetical phrases vs. em-dash, semicolons, punctuation outside the quotes, etc. But the grammar and style aside - what I do take a tad bit of a back step on it you saying I've used non-neutral wording. I'll take another look at the article and my changes, but at a high level, from the articles cited which I've read, I'd say this wiki entry is really violating WP:NPOV, WP:BLP minimally. I didn't comb through the entire page history, but now I will check it out, but from what I saw in these articles vs. the wiki - anything even remotely positive is either not mentioned or was at one point and then removed. I take the WP:BLP policy very seriously when I edit for obvious reasons..... as we all do. I'm happy to collaborate with all editors on Wikipedia, which we all know is a consensus.

I'll go take a closer look... The Real Serena Joy^Talk 20:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Petty disputes" (emphasis on "petty") was what I had in mind in regard to non-neutral wording. Such a value judgment diminishes the civil cases brought against Kavanaugh, which would be ok to use were it supported by the article body and by reliable sources, which it isn't. Regarding NPOV and BLP issues, nothing in particular sticks out to me (the article has received quite a bit of outside attention and has been combed over several times), but if there are any, please raise those at Talk:Ryan Kavanaugh to discuss. Popoki35 made what appears to be an honest effort to explain their general structure/punctuation objections in their edit summaries, see the revision history. If you want to raise your objections on the article talk page in regard to those reversions, please feel free to do so. Throast (talk | contribs) 23:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Articles, 4th Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to TheRealSerenaJoy for copyediting 12 articles during the GOCE May 2022 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 02:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Miniapolis! The bling is a nice touch! The Real Serena Joy^Talk 13:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Words, 5th Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to TheRealSerenaJoy for copyediting 25,711 total words during the GOCE May 2022 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 02:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The (old school) League of Copy Editors Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to TheRealSerenaJoy for copy edits totaling over 30,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE May 2022 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 02:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheRealSerenaJoy, finally the trifecta of editors coming to scare you away from editing. No, I think that the environment over there is very toxic, as highly socked/paid areas often become. Everyone has so much fun booting off socks they forget that sometimes new editors are the good faith kind like yourself. No doubt the suspicions leveled at you were a huge over reaction, but I don't think they come from a place of bad faith, just lack of agf. I'd have emailed you but A) I can't, B) In the interest of transparency this works better. Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Yes, I do think the reaction was a bit overzealous. If I have an issue with an edit I think is wrong, I fix it and mark it in the revision note. If the explanation is long enough, I'd leave a comment for that user if it were substantial enough to warrant so. I would never ask "why are you editing this page? Do you have a conflict of interest?" as these two have done. And yes, I see in looking through the page history, what appears to be suspicious activity, and sadly the reactions here and the peeking I've done on the page so far lead me to believe that the two editors in question who have parked themselves like a couple of trolls under the bridge, are being paid. Arguing over whether to call the guy a producer or not when the larger part of the ~87 sources assign him the title of producer (one article does so at least 10 times within) makes me wonder, why the fight on such a stupid matter that is clearly verifiable in print? They're arguing to keep the article wrong? Why? That screams COI to me. I've not had any terrible experiences with Wikipedia for the most part people have been helpful and pleasant. But I am going to do more research on this because (regarding specifically the COI accusation) "whoever smelt it, dealt it" usually is more accurate than not. I also had to defend my honor since I got 4th? or 5th? place for participation in last month's GOCE drive. ;) Thanks again. PS: feel welcome to email, I did not realize I had "allow emails" unchecked in prefs. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 16:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... I don't think so. Most editors don't just decide to start getting paid after a thousand edits and several years. For Popoki35, looks like someone who was intially topics surrounding Kavanaugh, somewhat along the lines of a SPA, but just edit following their interests. I can attest to the fact that the controversy section is the easiest to contribute to for BLP, because it's more interesting. Kavanaugh is not the only one recieving Popoki35's attention. TheranosLive Nation EntertainmentJordan PetersonThierry Meyssan. Pabsoluterince (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you.... it's a rather "obscure" interest to have, but to each his/her/their own I guess. But with so much attention in this area, I'd expect they'd be SMEs... and to get something so basic as the dude's birthday, and whether he's a producer or not, (given tons of solid sources indicating the facts) feels pretty basic. To be that invested in a page, and still get the facts wrong, screams of something other than "I have an organic, deep interest in this page for no particular reason." I edit kinda sporadically but I try to get in as much as I can with free time. But wiht a real-life paying career, my priority is not Wikipedia. I also wonder who the heck has the time to edit THAT much? Editors who seem to make an unpaid career of Wikipedia must be either 16 — or 80 — and living in mom's basement and don't need to earn a living. And at 16, they'd be out smoking week, and at 80, unable to handle the complexity of markup. I trust my gut.... and my gut said I hit a nerve touching that page. But now, like a car accident - I'm both attracted and repelled simultaneously.... I can't help but want to see more of what's going on. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 23:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]