SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) Undid revision 1110367826 by SandyGeorgia (talk)oopsie fat fingers Tag: Undo |
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk | contribs) →No hard feelings: new section Tag: New topic |
||
Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
::I understood what you were trying to say, yes. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC) |
::I understood what you were trying to say, yes. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::Thx, BK ... I will always strongly oppose any candidate who gives an appearance from the outset of ticking off the boxes en route to RFA, or what we called in the olden days "climbing the RFA greasepole". Because I linked to Spartaz's concerns, that became twisted into a sock accusation, which I never made. Can't fix that now, so oh well. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC) |
:::Thx, BK ... I will always strongly oppose any candidate who gives an appearance from the outset of ticking off the boxes en route to RFA, or what we called in the olden days "climbing the RFA greasepole". Because I linked to Spartaz's concerns, that became twisted into a sock accusation, which I never made. Can't fix that now, so oh well. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC) |
||
== No hard feelings == |
|||
I've gone back and forth about reaching out to you, and I know there's a whole ''thing'' about discussions and reaching out during an RFA, but after your last post I wanted to let you know that I don't hold any ill will towards you. You're stating your beliefs and feelings, and you're more than entitled to that. You don't know me, and as far as I can recall, we haven't interacted, so you're left with reading. I'm disappointed that I come across as admin-seeking to you, but I can understand how you see it that way. However the RFA turns out, I honestly don't hold anything against you. |
|||
On the topic of EC/MF, by the time I became aware of him, he was already going by Eric Corbett. I didn't see any of the earlier stuff, except what I read in diffs that were linked in the discussions at the time. I also respect that your concerns over admin conduct in that situation inform your views at RFA. |
|||
Hopefully we'll meet again under less pitched circumstances. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 22:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:55, 15 September 2022
About me | Talk to me | To do list | Tools and other useful things | Some of my work | Nice things | Yukky things | Archives |
As promised
User:Hog Farm/FAR pageviews. Everything from Joan's 1.1 million this year to Larrys Creek's ~600. (Ironically, both of the extremes are stalled out). FWIW, my 7 FACs barely break 100,000 combined for the same time period, suggesting that I'm indeed more useful at FAR. Or, as Mrs. HF suggests, that I'm just a nerd for obscure things Hog Farm Talk 03:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- Wow, can't believe you got that done already. Too tired to look, but will comment in the am. Your low pageview articles are still valuable :) The problem is not that we have niche or small or less "vital" or less viewed articles; the problem at FAC has been that we can't even civilly discuss how to encourage the other kind :) Going to sleep now, Darjeeling Dizzy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- As an aside, I really don't think it would be responsible for me to nominate anything at FAR for the foreseeable future. Just too busy to keep up with more than 3 right now, frankly. Darjeeling should be nearing resolution, and the School for Creative and Performing Arts is likely gone in a week, and that'll get me down to three (Irene, Missouri, and Larrys Creek). Hog Farm Talk 04:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Schizophrenia
I have always gotten very strong WP:NOTHERE vibes from that user. There's definitely issues of ASPERSIONS and sourcing, POVPUSHING, etc. many of which have appeared to be very intractable and complex. I'm not sure there is a succinct or reasonable way to explain the numerous problems with their contributions. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- The bigger problem is that if more editors don't start watchlisting, updating, and maintaining schizophrenia, it will have to go to WP:FAR and be defeatured, and then it will go all to heck .. and it is a very high-view article, as well as rated top importance. It's an indicator of the quality issues across our medical content. Problem editors take care of themselves over time; problematic content not so much. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- You've certainly succeeded in giving me reason to work on it more closely, scout's honor. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Casliber is planning to update it, so giving him a chance to work first would be best ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- You've certainly succeeded in giving me reason to work on it more closely, scout's honor. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I'll bite!
Give me a clue then, and I'll be happy to look, if it interests me and I continue to have time, energy and health to take it on. John (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- It's too early now, as there are more serious issues to be sorted before a copyedit, and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Andrew Jackson/archive1 was launched prematurely, but the prose at Andrew Jackson suffers from extreme verbosity and frequently goes off topic. Have a look at the FAR and at my comments on the talk page. As it appears that the nominator, Display name 99 is receptive, my suggested approach there is 1) get the POV issue more under control (that usually takes care of itself over time, as folks realize that FAR is not for speedy delists, so they may as well stop screaming and start collaborating); 2) create and cut considerable content to Military career of Andrew Jackson; 3) do a better job of more tightly summarizing content from Presidency of Andrew Jackson; 4) and then after all that is done, your skills at copyediting and verbosity reduction would be most helpful. I think Indy beetle is down for the same plan, but it's early still to start on that sort of work, as some serious cutting and trimming should be done before copyediting. (Someone over on talk is focusing on copyediting now, which is really premature at this stage.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hi SendyGeorgia. I appreciate your words on the FA review page and on the Andrew Jackson talk page. The article has undergone extensive changes over the past month as a result of the current content dispute. As you probably have deduced by now, it centers around what some editors allege is a pro-Jackson tone in the article, particularly the lead. It began when FinnV3, a novice editor with practically no editing experience, attempted to change something in the opening paragraph, and one other editor and myself objected. It has since escalated to the point where it has involved dozens of editors and dragged on for about a month. I've been involved in some contentious and drawn out things on Wikipedia, but this is one of the most intense. If you are looking to be involved in working on the article long-term, I'd appreciate that. In doing so, I think that it might help for you to be able to see the last stable version of the article. Here it is. This version is only 16,786 words. It's too long, but not as bad as the current version. Perhaps it would be edifying to compare this with the newer version of the article and examine in what ways you think the article has improved or worsened during the ongoing dispute. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- As a FAR regular, I feel that I can be more effective in the long run by not getting directly involved in the content dispute ... but I do appreciate the problem as you describe it. Give it time; that editor might flame out, and then if there are issues, they can be calmly addressed by more experienced editors at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. I was referring to you being involved in copyediting and trimming, not the content dispute. Display name 99 (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Just noticed that the Legacy section also needs some serious trimming-- another area where a sub-article could be/should be created and content summarized. Have a look at Joan of Arc, one of the most studied figures of the Middle Ages, and an internationally recognized heroine and sant: Legacy, 980 words. J. K. Rowling, one of the most successful writers ever: 447 words. Jackson, 1,800 words, featuring overquoting as well. I am wondering why FAC let this one out in the state it's in, and the faster content is trimmed to sub-articles, the more likely the article can be saved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. I was referring to you being involved in copyediting and trimming, not the content dispute. Display name 99 (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- As a FAR regular, I feel that I can be more effective in the long run by not getting directly involved in the content dispute ... but I do appreciate the problem as you describe it. Give it time; that editor might flame out, and then if there are issues, they can be calmly addressed by more experienced editors at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hi SendyGeorgia. I appreciate your words on the FA review page and on the Andrew Jackson talk page. The article has undergone extensive changes over the past month as a result of the current content dispute. As you probably have deduced by now, it centers around what some editors allege is a pro-Jackson tone in the article, particularly the lead. It began when FinnV3, a novice editor with practically no editing experience, attempted to change something in the opening paragraph, and one other editor and myself objected. It has since escalated to the point where it has involved dozens of editors and dragged on for about a month. I've been involved in some contentious and drawn out things on Wikipedia, but this is one of the most intense. If you are looking to be involved in working on the article long-term, I'd appreciate that. In doing so, I think that it might help for you to be able to see the last stable version of the article. Here it is. This version is only 16,786 words. It's too long, but not as bad as the current version. Perhaps it would be edifying to compare this with the newer version of the article and examine in what ways you think the article has improved or worsened during the ongoing dispute. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Getting active
It's funny, as overuse of passive voice is genuinely one of my bugbears. What do you think of a redlink for Maurice de Chop-Chop? He surely deserves one? John (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know ... we should probably ask Wtfiv on that one. I think our legs are being pulled on article talk re passive voice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- I realized that I forgot to respond to this page:
- John, I'm with Sandy, I don't think you should worry about this too much. Given your insight as an editor, if the passive voice was coming on too strong, you would have gracefully removed it. I was thinking that the user account bears a remarkable similarity to other user accounts we've experienced in the "Joan of Arc corner of Wikipedia. You can take a look at this user's previous posts in Joan's talk to get a sense of the eclectic nature of this focused concern on Joan's article. Regardless, I try my best to respect any point made, so I responded. If I'm correct about the user and their concern, my response on "who killed Joan", which otherwise seems orthogonal to the passive voice issues, may partly address their concern. If not, we'll hear more. On a different point: I'm delighted and honored that you chose to copy edit Joan. Your strengths as an editor are admirable. Without your thorough edits (and Sandy's, of course), I'm uncertain the FARC would have considered keeping the article. Wtfiv (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Wtfiv. Certainly when a talk page is being used indiscriminately, and to further points held by only one editor and with which no one else agrees, we are all free to ignore the posts rather than being drawn into continuous WP:IDHT arguments. That is, we don't need to let our time be misspent when only one editor has an issue that no one else has. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Joan has finally been allowed back into the ranks of the FA! What a long, strange trip its been. I'll still keep at it to make sure all reviewer's concerns are addressed, and to make sure she doesn't get socked again. But I need to repeat it once more: I am very grateful for all you shared: the intensive labor, the patience, the resources, the support and guidance! Thank you! Wtfiv (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Great news to wake up to, Wtfiv. Sadly, you can't get back the year of your life taken by a sock, but I hope there is consolation in knowing your efforts prevailed and Wikipedia ended up with a spectacular success thanks to you !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely, and getting to work with you closely med it worth it! If Jackson ever makes it to FAR, I'll help out if you need it! Wtfiv (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know if you have the paradoxical reaction that I do, but when one of the tough ones closes, I feel suddenly so much exhaustion that I can barely think, and have to go away for a few days or focus on mindless editing. I find myself numb. Jackson will be a tranwreck, that I don't look forward to. The entrenchment I've already seen does not bode well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely, and getting to work with you closely med it worth it! If Jackson ever makes it to FAR, I'll help out if you need it! Wtfiv (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Trimming and such
Trimming Josquin's article is strangely depressing :( Your efforts at Joan and JKR have reminded me just how high we can put our standards, so I suppose it's a necessary evil. I'm not done with the legacy section, but only a few lines are needed. When do you think Joan will wrap up? I really do think in 2–3 weeks we'll be able to keep and close Josquin's FAR. Aza24 (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hard to tell about Joan because both Firefangledfeathers and Victoria may have more to say ... if they come in with only quibbles, perhaps we could be done in a week. I hope so, because I'm just about all Joaned-out. Between JKR and Joan, I hardly look forward to what awaits at Andrew Jackson, and expect Josquin to be at least pleasant !! What is the deal with the J letter ?!? Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- I took a peek at the Jackson article. I agree. It's needs to rest outside of the oven for a bit to cool down, and then- as you said- it needs quite a bit trimming first. Looks like there's plenty of meat for the non-vegetarian, but until we can get the fat cut away, there's not much room for verifying citations. I'm available to help out in a supporting role, if/when you think its useful. And as to Joan: I've been "Joaned out" for quite a long while now. It is an adventure very different than what I expected when I agreed to become part of the process. Wtfiv (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think we'll all remember The Great J Year! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Omg! The Js—how bizarre! Aza24 (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Aza24 maybe we should add V to the list ? Hang in there; you are appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Omg! The Js—how bizarre! Aza24 (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think we'll all remember The Great J Year! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- I took a peek at the Jackson article. I agree. It's needs to rest outside of the oven for a bit to cool down, and then- as you said- it needs quite a bit trimming first. Looks like there's plenty of meat for the non-vegetarian, but until we can get the fat cut away, there's not much room for verifying citations. I'm available to help out in a supporting role, if/when you think its useful. And as to Joan: I've been "Joaned out" for quite a long while now. It is an adventure very different than what I expected when I agreed to become part of the process. Wtfiv (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Such pessimism! Josquin is all yours now, by the way—not trying to nag, just wasn't sure if that was clear. Aza24 (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Heads up
Hi SandyGeorgia. I started a discussion at WP:COIN about our friend at Cassava Sciences/Simufilam. I mentioned you there briefly. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- I figured we'd end up there sooner or later ... the articles are so embarassing, and I want to continue cleanup, but the talk page is just an insufferable thing to behold, and I'm just tired of it. I so dislike leaving something as half-assed as those pages are now, but what an insufferable situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you ...
... for your encouragement for Aza24 and the path to solution. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Great work!
Hi @SandyGeorgia, I'm really appreciative about all the excellent work you do on assorted articles. I look to your edits as good examples so that hopefully I can be a little less timid in making edits. ScienceFlyer (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks ... I'll admit it's a bit hard to do as I am so often (as I am now) editing from an iPhone hotspot ... which makes me look like more of a ditz than I actually am :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
FASA nomination John
Thank you for that. It was a very nice touch. Great to be working with you again after all this time. Can't wait for the next challenge! Well, actually I could do with a week or so off to be honest.. John (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- The pleasure is all mine :) I've got another one for you, but it can wait a week. Take care, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- PS, John, I'd like to reserve your talents for the most worthy, so hope you won't get tangled up in some of those that are now so poor that they may be beyond saving. Don't want you to burn out- would rather see you work at the high level that Joan was when you stepped in, and we have another one like Joan brewing, but it needs a bit more content review before it's ready for fresh eyes to look at the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi
How are you and your husband feeling? I was (much more briefly) sick myself and took a break from editing; turns out it wasn't COVID. Anyway, found another example of a bloated lead, at September 11 attacks. I trimmed it a bit: [2], but in hindsight I could've just reverted to the GA version (Special:Diff/671152132), which is pretty good. Incredible how these leads can accrue detail!
Also hoping to get back to the Planet FAR soon, maybe workshop some different article structures.... Ovinus (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Password resets
If you are dying to know who sent the password resets, I can take a look. They get logged in the CU table. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thx, Guerillero. What would we gain? That is, what would change (other than people knowing to keep strong password protection)? I seriously doubt it's anything other than a LTA attempting to sow discord, so I'm thinking not to give it any more fuel. But I need to be better educated. I'm thinking that 360 attempts in an hour is not a very good automated attempt ? That if it were a serious hacker, the number would be higher? But I'm out of my depth here ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- PS, at this stage, I'm not so worried because it has stopped. It seems as if someone was hoping they'd find an easily uncoverable password? I don't think 360 attempts in an hour is a highly effective attack ??? It seems like some LTA follows controversial arbcases and RFAs, and then yes, as GeneralNotability said, attempts to sow discord. (And one participant at the talk page where I raised the issue to make others aware was happy to further that attempt.) On the other hand, it's quite irritating how other RFA participants converted what I did not say in to what they think I did say, while twisting my main concern into oblivion, and any attempt to get back to what I did say at this stage will just be bludgeoning. Moving on ... that's Wikipedia :). At some point after the RFA ends, I'm going to ask Barkeep49, who is familiar with my prose (if we can call it that :) if he understood my point was never what it was contorted in to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- I understood what you were trying to say, yes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thx, BK ... I will always strongly oppose any candidate who gives an appearance from the outset of ticking off the boxes en route to RFA, or what we called in the olden days "climbing the RFA greasepole". Because I linked to Spartaz's concerns, that became twisted into a sock accusation, which I never made. Can't fix that now, so oh well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- I understood what you were trying to say, yes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
No hard feelings
I've gone back and forth about reaching out to you, and I know there's a whole thing about discussions and reaching out during an RFA, but after your last post I wanted to let you know that I don't hold any ill will towards you. You're stating your beliefs and feelings, and you're more than entitled to that. You don't know me, and as far as I can recall, we haven't interacted, so you're left with reading. I'm disappointed that I come across as admin-seeking to you, but I can understand how you see it that way. However the RFA turns out, I honestly don't hold anything against you.
On the topic of EC/MF, by the time I became aware of him, he was already going by Eric Corbett. I didn't see any of the earlier stuff, except what I read in diffs that were linked in the discussions at the time. I also respect that your concerns over admin conduct in that situation inform your views at RFA.
Hopefully we'll meet again under less pitched circumstances. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)