This user may have left Wikipedia. Yomangani has not edited Wikipedia since 1 September 2020. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
I searched the list of gongs to find one to pin on you, but none seemed adequate. Permit me to pin my own personal medal on you for – well, obviously taking BB's last article to FAC – but also for your gentle and kindly intervention at the punch-up on the FAC general talk page. I don't entirely agree with you at all turns, but I hereby confer on you my Sellar and Yeatman Award for being a Good Thing. Tim riley talk18:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
(watching:) If you look at the FAC you'll see that we keep this sentence as the beloved Brian Boulton wrote it. We can't possibly blame him ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda Arendt He may be beloved, but it is awful and incomprehensible to anyone, let alone normal readers. We do him honor by improving on his work, not eternally memorializing editorial mistakes by setting then into concrete.
A run-on sentence isn't what you think it is. We aren't writing for Simple Wikipedia or some Government information site, we are writing for people who are at least partially interested; varying sentence lengths are fine. Also, I didn't write most of that, so I'm pleading not guilty. Yomanganitalk15:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to edit war over this. And yes, we are nowhere near the Longest English sentence. I've said my piece. So have at it. 15:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
7+6, don't look now, but in the environment that has recently taken over at FAC, strident criticism of prose on a FAC is enough to start a big drahma-fest and get you chased out of FAC. (In other words, I appreciate that you registered your concern and am very happy to see Yomangani modeling for others the grown-up way to respond to strident prose criticism.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
7+6 fear not; I am using this as an example to comment on a trend that has taken over recently at FAC, where criticism is discouraged, and very good copyeditors have been chased out. Criticism at FAC should be ENCOURAGED at all times, review should be strident, we should not lower our standards, and we should not respond to criticism like entitled children. I look forward to seeing this issue play out as one of this nature should at FAC, not as a drahma-fest. I did not intend for my commentary to sound like a threat; your criticism is valid, and now we should see what others have to say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, criticism registered, here, there and at FAC. I'm not going to act on it, as I don't agree, but if the consensus is with you, that's fine. Yomanganitalk15:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the "olden days", leads were expected to be reviewed to be blurb ready. Dank shouldn't be having to extensively rewrite many of them, because FAC isn't reviewing them. Take, as an example, how much Dank had to do here, even before Outriggr recently edited that lead to repair it because it was indigestible.[1][2] That lead was not well reviewed at FAC, and it appears that both Dank and Outriggr saw that. Along with sourcing and prose and MOS, scrutiny of leads at FAC has diminished. And Dank is having to fix sub-standard leads when he writes blurbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are all on the same team with the same goal. We are all volunteers here. No offense was expressed or intended. Believe me, I am well aware of the problems of editing by committee. Been there; done that. FWIW, the "reasonable man" is a legal fiction too. 7&6=thirteen (☎)17:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I explained over at the FAC why this matters personally to me (medical FAs destroyed, as well as the issue of modeling how we should respond to criticism at FAC). Thanks for giving me the opportunity to indulge not one, but two, pet peeves! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm sure it will get picked up for TFA at some point now we don't have enough new FAs to fill the slots. All the poignant date connections have just been missed or are much later in the year. Yomanganitalk00:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was picked for today. Thank you for the efforts to keep Brian's work appreciated, saying: Australasian Antarctic Expedition "was Brianboulton's last big almost finished project, so it would be nice to get it to FA as a tribute." - Aza24 and I work on making Monteverdi's operas a featured topic, the list is up for FL, - something I never did successfully ;) - help welcome. - Talking about tributes: yesterday, a composer was pictured on the Main page who wrote a triple concerto for violin, harp and double bass, the article on the piece written in honour of the composer who died and my brother who plays double bass. The composer was a Wikipedian and wrote about his colleague, with a picture. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the dogs drama, sorry. That would have been the perfect DYK today, - what a shame. Could that become a GA, even FA, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Epic Barnstar
Dear Yomangani, Heartfelt congratulations on bringing Brian Boulton's rewrite of Australasian Antarctic Expedition to FA status. I dare say he would have been very pleased, not least also thanks to your highly entertaining and wonderfully extravagant edit summaries! So, very well done, and thank you also for all your other contributions to our encyclopedia.
Thanks for uploading File:Splicethemainbrace.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. John of Reading (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of Dogs of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition
Yoninah Yomangani has not edited for several days. I have tried to go look at his DYK to see if I can help, but I am getting a weird database error which won't let me access the template: A database query error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. [Xou1agpAMMUAA2CZeUgAAABQ] 2020-04-06 23:04:10: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us were worried you'd gone off on an (Ant)(Aa)r(c)tic Expedition or something. Come to think of it, it might be the smart move. Outriggr (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for any concern caused. It was pure coincidence. I was stocking up on guzzoline for when the thundering machines sputter and stop. Yomanganitalk07:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was the "or something" part that I've been losing sleep over. Outriggr, I am days behind in responding on your talk to many things, and I was worried about you, too. (I see you've noticed I have had my hands full.) Can I go all "sneer of cold command" (which the dear hubby often associates with my online personaggio) and demand that you all at least check in here daily during the pandemic? I got enough to worry about! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The time limits are only the starting gun. It still qualifies. There are four paragraphs that need citations, and they are marked with "citation needed". You are now over all the other hurdles. You've run 25 miles (40 km). Finish the marathon.
I understand your frustration. Yes, you are right: the WP:DYK process is bureaucratic and overladen with rules – common sense is not part of it. And it takes too long. Believe me, I have been on the other end of this b.s. We need to fix the problem, not fix the blame. Finishing up your article and getting it on the main page is what we can do today.
C&C, that would typically be a Yoman original. You should see him in Spanish. More importantly ... pass the Serum!! Good to "see" you, Yoman. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I have nominated Order of St Patrick for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FAR for England expects that every man will do his duty
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. I remember you for precious edit summaries on top of excellent reviews, and for the energy you put in making an unfinished article by Brian a FA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Goldfinch is an oil-on-panel painting by the Dutch Golden Age artist Carel Fabritius of a life-sized chained goldfinch. Signed and dated 1654, it is now in the collection of the Mauritshuis in The Hague, Netherlands. The work is a trompe-l'œil painting that was once part of a larger structure, perhaps a window jamb or a protective cover. It is possible that the work was in Fabritius's studio in Delft at the time of a large gunpowder explosion on 12 October 1654 that killed him and destroyed much of the city. A common and colourful bird with a pleasant song, the goldfinch was a popular pet, and could be taught simple tricks including lifting a thimble-sized bucket of water. It was reputedly a bringer of good health, and was used in Italian Renaissance painting as a symbol of Christian redemption and the Passion of Jesus. The Goldfinch is unusual for the Dutch Golden Age painting period in the simplicity of its composition and use of illusionary techniques. Following the death of its creator, it was lost for more than two centuries before its rediscovery in Brussels.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moscow Water Dog until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
.jpg)
