User talk:Amandajm/Archives/2023/March

Over and out!

GPinkerton (talk), I want it to be known that you are a bloody-minded, officious bully, who knows how to lift text from other sources, mainly a Dictionary, (and reference it) and who is good at writing insulting material to other editors, but has no talent for writing articles.

Pinkerton, as you have observed, I have been around since 2006, but I have had a five year break.

I think it is time to take another one.

But before I go, I am going to make the point here that Wikipedia is for its users. It is for the students who are doing their homework. It is potentially, a good encyclopedic source.

It is not a repository of information arbitrarily assembled from cited sources, regardless of how well sourced they may be.

You seem to imagine that you are doing a very valuable service to Wikipedia by having identified the fact that an elderly, retired college lecturer and museum educator, wrote a paragraph of Personal Research on an aspect of Michelangelo's work not previously explored by other experts.

Now, why would I have done that? Could it just be that I have expertise?

You imagine that Wikipedia needs you, because you can track miscreants and 'bring them to order. You know how to hound, and to harass.

Wikipedia needs your skills like Hogwarts needs Dolores Umbridge.

SiefkinDR (talk), You appear to be a well-intentioned twit!

I am going to tell you again that it was your failure to comprehend the significance of the pointed arch that has been sending students down the wrong track, and had them persistently giving only the ribbed vault and flying buttress as the primary indicators of Gothic, even though thousands of Gothic buildings do not have either of them.

You do not catch on fast. You cannot tell the difference between a Lancet Gothic chapter house and Flowing Decorated Gothic Lady Chapel.

Moreover, you don't seem to be able to tell the difference, even when it is pointed out to you, and you have just written the information that tells you what to look for.

If you were just a little quicker at comprehending and acting upon the information you are given, when it is placed on the talk page of the article you are working on, you would do better.

I have incorporated material sourced by ‘’you’’ into what I have been writing.

If you learn to do the same, you will contribute twice as well.

Keep safe!

Amandajm (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

My warning about the PAs notwithstanding, I think you were doing very good work at Gothic architecture, and I hope that your recent revert to the state it was in before you started, and the 'over and out' title here, aren't a permanent situation. If there's anything I can do to support you in this, please let me know. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Amandajm: @Girth Summit: I second that; I would hate to see someone abandon the project over a disagreement like that one. GPinkerton (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Amandjam, I'm sorry to have keep repeating this, but you are not the only editor of this article. Other people have been working on it, and will continue to work on it. The article will most probably be split up into different aspects, if that is the consensus. A Wikipedia article is not written as a textbook for students. That's clear in the Wikipedia MOS. Your contributions are valuable and of course will be included, but you will not be the sole or chief editor, Thanks for your understanding. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci to Featured article.

Hi Amandajm,

First of all, your work on the Leonardo Da Vinci article is super impressive and well done. As a big fan of him myself I'd love to see his article become a featured one. I was wondering if you have any intentions to try and do so? If so, I'd love to help out in any capacity, just let me know if there's any particularly weak sections, or ones that need looking at, I have access to a bunch of books and resources on him. Aza24 (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Aza24, it is indeed a first rate article, but unfortunately not written to the specific stylistic guidelines favoured by FAC, as was evident in the unkindly received FA nom back in c 2008 or so. In addition, it has been a number of years since Amanda was looking over it, and unfortunately its the nature of something that "anybody can edit" that it may have depreciated in this time, usually through well meaning, but misguided "improvements" (see above). Ceoil (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ceoil: I completely understand. If you were referring to my comment as a "misguided improvement" when you said "see above" I hope you recognize that I purposefully asked here in order to make sure my intents for improvement weren't misguided! That being said, if either of you two were to attempt to rewrite/reformat the article to FA guidelines in the future, I'd love to assist. I just didn't feel it was my place to do that on my own, due to the amount of work, not be my, already done to the article. Aza24 (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Dont worry, the issue above this sect is re misplaced arrogance, while you are very diligent in weighing sources. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

GAR notice

Sistine Chapel ceiling, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)