User talk:Geometry guy/Archive 14

I love waltzes; thank you! :)

The same, yet seen from a different perspective.

Your gift of music was all that I needed to remember and appreciate anew our Eden. :) Willow (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

“ To know of someone here and there who is in accord with us, who is living on with us, even in silence — this makes our earthly ball a peopled garden. ” — Goethe

Thank you so much for this. It has illuminated my evening. Now I'm ready to relax to a nice waltz :). You have an amazing skill for finding wonderful images: I hope you'll share some of your secrets with me some time. The transcendent beauty of a circle, and the symbolic beauty of a heart, brought together by music, pure poetry... Geometry guy 00:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is going to sound really nerdy, but whenever I see a photo with some music in it, I try to identify it. This is Burgmüller's Ballade. I do the same with snippets of math equations that appear in photos. Anyway, it really is a lovely image! VectorPosse (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not nerdy at all! I wondered myself what it was (well, okay, I may be a nerd too).

Alas we seem not to have an article on (I presume) Robert Burgmüller. Here's a link to a performance of the piece, and here's a younger performance of an abridged version :-). I agree with the identification: in particular the left hand has the melody on the left hand page, while the right hand takes over on the right. It isn't really a waltz in my view, and some of it feels more like 6:8 rather than 3:8, but I haven't found online access to a score so far. Geometry guy 22:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As far I as know, it is Johann Friedrich Franz Burgmüller. A link to the score is located at the Mutopia project: [1] Anyway, I can see where you get the 6/8 idea from the left-hand melody, but this is only if the accent is misplaced on the 4th sixteenth note. Given the right-hand accompaniment, it should be played (and heard) in 3/4 throughout. VectorPosse (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's more like it! Now I know what I did wrong: I searched for Bergmuller, and only found Johann Georg Bergmüller. Some dab pages and links are probably needed here! Thanks for explaining the timing: the score you link is indeed in 3/8 (although I agree this should sound the same as 3/4, not 6/8). Cheers, Geometry guy 09:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, yeah. 3/8. That's what I meant to say.  :) VectorPosse (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

groups

Hi Geometryguy,

it seems that everybody from the math guy's panel is busy or whatever, and cannot respond to my peer review request of groups. If you could have a look again, I'd be grateful. I have tried to cover your earlier concerns about Applications and History, so I hope the article has made a substantial leap forward. Group theory is also slowly growing to a more mature presentation.

Thank you, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to find time to take a look, but I can't promise. Also an independent pair of eyes will serve the article better, so don't be shy about pestering other editors (e.g. from WPM) individually. Geometry guy 00:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Madonna reassessment

Wasnt sure if you wanted to update your thoughts on this, you havent commented in a while. Cheers. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ive now resorted to removing claims of "DONE" when they are obviously not. The editer has been doing this all the way through the assessment, so instead of rewritting the same points over and over im just going to remove incorrect DONE claims. I see this as part of the reason the assessment has got so long. My patience with this near month long episode is very low, because;

• It has been nearly 4 weeks despite an almost unanimous vote if favour of delisting
• Requests are rarely fully completed
• The main editer refuses to communicate in a coherent manner
• I have had little help monitering the situation
• Progress stops and starts up again like a dripping tap, just as we go to close work picks up again.

Sorry, I thought I'd just be honest. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 21:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I support your actions, and share your concerns about the main editor. After raising issues myself I now sympathise too! I was tempted to restart the GAR, but I may instead ignore all rules and summararily close as delist. However, the article is being improved, at least from a GA perspective. If the footnote concerns are addressed, my main remaining issue is the lead. The prose, though not great, is bearable now. And you? Geometry guy 21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I still have issues with site formatting, pros are poor, there is little mention of her new album/singles (theyve been out long enough and ive asked for this inclusion no less than 5 times) and im really concerned about some of the worthwhile material that was deleted instead of sourced and Im concerned about neutrality (particularly in the lead). Im also quite hurt by the way ive been treated by the editer, who seems to be taking this all too personally. Maybe thats to be expected when tension has been in the air for more than 3 weeks. I find myself coming close to edit warring trying to get the article to GA. I should have delisted it three weeks ago and saved myself the stress, ill be happy when I can go back to my articles. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 21:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at this, notice how the editer says <!-- Ref at end of para -->. I dont like that, surely using the <ref="name"> is better. Its done about 20 times in the article. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 11:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't have a big problem with that. There's a compromise to be made between overwhelming every sentence with cites and making it easy for readers to check sources. As long as contentious material, statistics, opinions and quotations are clearly sourced, it is fine for GA. The comments in the wikitext are not for readers, but are useful additional information for reviewers and editors to ensure that sourced material is connected with a source and that it remains connected with that source if further edits are made. Geometry guy 23:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. Is there a variant of English in which "editor" is spelt "editer"? Please forgive my ignorance if so.

Check my user page, believe it or not English isn't my first language. Its probably an error on my part. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

are you sure we don't need GA reviewer training?

• See this
• Ling.Nut (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I just saw this - I did tell Dusti off for it on his talk page, and advised him not to pass it unless he actually believed it was GA standard. Later, I brought it up on WT:RFA as an example of what not to do, but Dusti posted a defense of himself that I can't find - check the WT:RFA archives. Apparently, he claimed that he just happened to mention my adminship and in no way was suggesting that it was related to passing the article. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 15:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) GA

Thanks for closing the GAR. Just a reminder that you should update Wikipedia:Good articles/recent when you promote a WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's optional. One day I will automate it, but for now I consider it to be a waste of time, sorry. Geometry guy 08:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It was important to me because for about two days I had a personal record five of the fifteen most recent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am looking for a response at WT:WIAGA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Next time

Next time you get someone asking if you're a homosexual, feel free reply thusly (if, in fact, you are not): "No, but this user is and you may ask her all the questions you have to satiate your curiosity."

Sorry I didn't catch the vandalism. --Moni3 (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A bit of a bolt from the blue! I was going to say "I've never been asked", but then I checked my user talk history and found the vandalism that prompted this. That's the first time my user or talk page has been vandalised as far as I remember, so I guess that means I've finally made it as a Wikipedian! :-)

Neither your sexuality nor mine has anything to do with improving the encyclopedia, and I certainly would not reply thusly! If I have inadvertantly offended you in some way, as it seems from your message, please accept my apologies. That is certainly not something I would wish to do, especially not to an editor whose contributions I respect so greatly. Geometry guy 18:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You didn't offend me. Neither did your vandal, but I missed a chance for wit. Bummer. --Moni3 (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm laughing now anyway (perhaps at myself)! Sorry that my sense of humour was not fully engaged earlier... Luckily, I'm not the only one watching this page, and I'm sure your wit has been well appreciated by others, and not just, belatedly, by me! Thanks also to Cosmic Latte for the quick vandalism fix (great username, incidentally: I guess that's an espresso with a lot of Milky Way). I suspect I also need a male redirect for such enquiries... any volunteers? :-) Geometry guy 20:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Trump Chicago now at FAC

Since you expressed an opinion recently at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)/1, I thought you might want to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

GA problems

See Talk:Adelaide Rams and Talk:1992 Nicaragua earthquake for some page= issues. (And the latter created a new section on WP:GA, although another earthquake is in history). Gimmetrow 02:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check them out later. Geometry guy 09:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Add Talk:Hibernian F.C., also the growing list at WT:GA. Gimmetrow 06:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. These all have no GA review page, so I'm not too worried (teething problems). I guess I just have to check "What links here" to {{GA}} to see GAs that GimmeBot couldn't handle. I found one at Talk:Trial by Jury, which does have a GA review page, and this concerns me more: if this happens a lot, it needs to be addressed. Also the list at WT:GA is a concern. I've fixed some of them, but probably the instructions need to be improved. Geometry guy 21:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Madonna GAR

Fixed inconsistencies and noted in the changes of date locations on GAR. Anything else left? Ultra! 08:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior

• User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior Ling.Nut (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism Ling.Nut (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

    I like the opening: "Our readers come to Wikipedia expecting to find a serious and reputable intellectual resource. We must strive to meet these expectations..." If it were my essay, I would write "Our readers come to Wikipedia expecting to find patchy and inaccurate articles with inadequate sources, original research and pointless trivia. We must strive to ensure they are pleasantly surprised..." Geometry guy 09:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Time to close

Its time to close the Madonna reassessment, I leave this task in your hands and respect whatever decision you make. It is now time for you to be BOLD. It has been long enough now. Please read the reassessment, consider the consensus, re-read the article and close the reassessment giving a lengthy, long winded reasoning/conclusion on the article. Im not pressuring you do delist the article but I am pressuring you to end this madness so that everyone can go back to normal. I trust and will respect your decision, even if it goes against my/others view.

This whole thing has probably exposed a few flaw's in the GAR process which should probaby be adressed at some point. Thankyou. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 21:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not the dictatordirector of GAR, contrary to perception :-), nor do I take instruction. If your position is that you will respect the outcome of this GAR whatever it is, then you can go back to normal already. I, or someone else, will close the discussion in due course, but I don't consider it necessary to give a lengthy reasoning. If such reasoning were necessary, then I would ask an uninvolved admin to close it, rather than do it myself, but far more controversial GAR discussions have been closed with just three or four sentences, and reasonably so.

I would like to thank you, however, for all your help with the article. Not only have you gone beyond the call of duty in drawing attention to problems with the article, but you have also made considerable efforts to improve the article yourself. It is a far better piece than the one that you brought initially to GAR, and this is what Wikipedia is all about, not green dots on article talk pages. The latter are just a means to an end. Geometry guy 08:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wise words as always, :-) — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 08:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Madonna (entertainer)/1

Hi, this discussion, which you were involved in, has been restarted. Please take another look and try and get this wrapped up sooner rather than later. :-) Cheers, giggy _(:O) 12:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Your solution works too. :-) giggy _(:O) 00:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

June 16 Dispatch

Wikipedia:FCDW/June 16, 2008 is still at a very rough stage, but you may want to tune in and keep it watchlisted, and run through it before it's published. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. There will be no problem content-wise from two such excellent contributors, although some copyediting is going to be necessary. Geometry guy 16:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Math at FAC

Today's your day :-) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ars Conjectandi. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edward Wright (mathematician). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

They're both rather beyond my expertise, especially the second, but I've watchlisted the first and notified the math forum. I'm a bit concerned that this first one is not comprehensive, but we really need a probabilist to contribute. Geometry guy 18:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I just don't want you to come in at the end disappointed or surprised, even if they're beyond your expertise :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for the notice :-). Regarding Ars Conjectandi, it is of course a similar concern to the one I had with Emile Lemoine, but I am less confident that my concern is well-founded in this case. If no one chips in from WPM by Monday, I will see what I can do. What's the timescale for a close, given that sourcing and non-content-related concerns have almost entirely been addressed? Geometry guy 19:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. Am smiling more these days :-)

I'm not sure on timing; everywhere I look, regular FAC reviewers are putting up notices that they have summer conflicts, travel, commitments, so I'm starting to worry. FAC will slow down if more reviewers don't appear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Is a summer slowdown a problem? Hopefully, nominations will slow too... don't worry, be happy :-) Geometry guy 19:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now you're wishing less FAs on me so we can reach 3:1, huh? <grin> !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Lemoine, he seems to have survived mainpage day intact. And this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting information. On the one hand it explains a lot; on the other it makes me very impressed! I'm glad Lemoine fared well on the mainpage. Nousernamesleft made some fixes in May in response to my comments, and some further remarks by Carl. There's still room for expansion, but I'm fine with it as an FA now. Geometry guy 09:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(←) Okay I know you are joking, but this really could not be further from my mind right now! The only way the ratio will even get close to 3:1 is if there is a radical change in culture at GA followed by several years of sustained enthusiasm :-) Though the friendly competition is fun, and I can understand that I seem to represent GA to you, please don't forget that I got involved in GA because I didn't like the process, and I still think it is deeply flawed. I support it in the face of external misrepresentation and misunderstanding, but not in the face of valid criticism. Within the project, there is much I would like to change.

I'd like GA to be closer in style to FA in terms of process and accountability, hence my support for the review subpages, but I really want it to move away from FA in terms of its purpose and requirements, otherwise it is largely redundant (per Marskell). The Awadewit standard for GAs (she is one of the best reviewers there is) is great preparation for FAC, but is asking too much of the remaining 95% of our articles. I'd like reviewers to check that the sources are reliable, and then not worry too much about how many inline citations there are, as long as few key elements (quotations, opinions etc.) are cited. I'd like the broadness requirement to be relaxed considerably, so that the GA requirement is largely independent of specifications generated by WikiProjects. I'd like to be able to relax the prose standard that I myself frequently feel I have to address at GAR.

In short, I would like GA to be more accountable to a less exacting standard: if reviewers could be trained to evaluate sources, this might be possible within the current model. However, the wind isn't blowing in that direction right now, so I'm not worrying about it. Geometry guy 20:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, goody :-) Now you have to help us finish up WP:FCDW/June 23, 2008. Keep talking, and I'll keep giving you more work :-) You might also be interested in the conversation at MilHist, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's too long. If you can cut out about 1/3 off the current text and add a suitable graphic, I'll help. Hypocrasy, moi? :-)

I hope some others saw my long post here anyway. Hey ho... Geometry guy 21:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I made another pass at it (I didn't write it) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I wrote it! And yep, i'm wordy as all get out. Feel free to whack away at it! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wondering if you plan to review Edward Wright? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't: there isn't anything extra I can bring to the FAC here. I do plan to comment on FAC's Ars though :-) Geometry guy 18:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: GA Template

Hi Geometry guy. Ages since I've dropped you a note. Apologies.

No. Straight markup. My reviews start in an emacs buffer; at some point I run macros to pretty print and drop the markup into WP. Then tweak in WP. I like the table too; it reflects how I go about conducting GA reviews (the rare times The Spirit moves me to do GA reviews) and it neatly falls into the new subpage scheme. I've used it with some success here, here, and here, and, oh other places. I'm not much inclined to promote this table format to other reviewers because I think the obsessive and idiosyncratic way I go about reviewing articles would terrify saner folk. But for me, I like to lay all parts of the criterion in front of me, and then address each section, one by one, thoroughly, as if there were no backlogs or deadlines, and a table allows me to align pertinent criteria to parts of an evaluation in a neat and unambiguous way. Give the nominators their money's worth, you know? Take care. Always a pleasure to find your name on my talk page. Gosgood (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Likewise! So I'm guessing you cut and paste the table from a previous review, blank out the comments are start filling in the new review. Would you object to me creating a blank version of the table as a template, so other editors can substitute it if they wish? All reviewers have their own approach, but I'm very much in favour of thorough reviews, and your basic approach of laying out the criteria and addressing them one by one is a very good one. After a wait of maybe a month, nominators certainly do deserve their money's worth. Anyway, I think reviewers sharing good practice is one of the ways we can improve GA. Geometry guy 09:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to create a blank version; a very nearly blank version was lurking in page history (wikis rarely throw anything away), and I cleaned it up a tad. Have fun with it. Make it better. If the template could insert the current version of the criteria whenever it is instanced, that would be useful (but I shouldn't be telling you ways to have fun). Take care. Gosgood (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gosgood! It will be fun playing with it. Geometry guy 20:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons

Loyalist that I am, I've replied here. giggy _(:O) 00:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ping! Any thoughts on the latest comments? giggy _(:O) 05:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Uniform polyhedron

I wrote on Talk:Uniform polyhedron:

I saw some minor errors with number (singular/plural) and possessive in the large table under Convex forms and fundamental vertex arrangements, and what seemed to be a cut-and-paste error, and I fixed them; but I'd forgotten to sign in. Some geometer, please make sure my changes didn't introduce errors.

You seem to be a good person to ask. -- Thnidu (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not the kind of geometry I do, but your fixes look okay to me. Geometry guy 09:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team Mission 4

Mission 4, a series of articles on the Everglades, could do with help from the FA-Team! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hot issue at GAR

Hi, G-guy. You may wish to jump in quickly to the John McCain GAR discussion. This could develop into a nasty dispute over a high profile article which was de-listed in the course of an edit war. I am, unfortunately, going to be off-wiki due to work for the next couple of weeks. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

GA FYI

See here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

PR archiving problems

Hi G guy, could you take a look at the Supergrass article peer reviews which are just being archived by the bot? User:PeerReviewBot/Logs/Archive#Errors_on_Jun_18 I have added what I thought were the correct templates by hand, but this did not work. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Carl fixed it, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Barbette (performer) GAR

If you have the time, would you mind taking a look at Barbette (performer)? The reviewer is doing his first review and wants a second opinion before promoting. You have looked into a number of GA nominations of mine previously and I value your opinion. Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions about the GA system

Hi, I'm trying to implement the GA system to another Wikipedia, and I have a question. Can you explain to me what the difference between {{GAN}} and {{GA nominee}} is? diego_pmc (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

We've just moved to a new system here at enwiki, where each GA review is stored on an article talk subpage, rather than the article talk page itself. The purpose of {{subst:GAN}} is simply to find the next free GA review subpage automatically. The {{GAnominee}} template is left on the article talk page during the review to provide links to the review subpage and to WP:GAN, and also to keep track of the status of the review. The advantage of the subpage approach is that it provides a permanent link to the review, but you may prefer to emulate a wiki which does not (yet!) use subpages. Geometry guy 20:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. So in other words GAN is used in the reviewing process, while GAnominee is for the GA templates in talk pages. BTW, is there a particular reason why we don't put any symbol on the top right corner for GAs, as we do for FAs? diego_pmc (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

First question: no, GAN is used to nominate an article, GAnominee is used during the review process. Second question, short answer: no, there is no particular reason. Geometry guy 08:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

PR page move problem

Hi G guy, Number-one albums of 1993 (U.S. Top Latin Albums) has been moved to Number-one latin albums of 1993 (U.S.), which has orphaned the peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Number-one albums of 1993 (U.S. Top Latin Albums)/archive1. I am not sure how to fix it. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding a redirect is the simplest fix. Geometry guy 08:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry not to just do the simplest thing Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It was a choice: a load of page moves was an alternative, but in this case I didn't see the point. Geometry guy 22:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Open Review proposal

I don't know if you've been following the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Reform, but based on the suggestions made, a proposal has been set out (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Reform#Open review proposal). I suspect you may have been deliberately steering clear of this (apologies if I'm barking up the wrong tree!), but as one of the more experienced members of the GA project your input, should you choose to give it, would be very welcome. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 10:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

At a first glance this looks good. I'll try to comment on Sunday evening/Monday UTC. Geometry guy 10:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't sure whether or not you were really busy or had just washed your hands of it. I've been trying to move things along a little, and hope you don't feel I've stepped on your toes (with you suggesting the working party and setting up the page and all). I certainly meant no offence ;) EyeSerene^talk 11:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm neither busy nor freshly washed :-) : I just wanted to leave it to others, and have been (pleasantly) surprised by the result. You are, in my view, one of the best editors contributing to GA: you're going to have to try much much harder if you want to cause me any offense :-) More seriously, I don't know how availabile I will be to help things along in the next days, but be confident; you certainly have my support. Geometry guy 22:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear that (and grossly flattered, I might add - but then I've had some good examples to follow!)... there are some suggestions re bots/templates/automated listings you may be interested in. EyeSerene^talk 09:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Creating geo lists

Hi I've made an intital suggestion at the GEOBOT talk page in that it would be an excellent idea to generate a full lists of places in a tabled list. Once this is accomplished we can work through what articles could be started in their own right if there is enough info avilabale. I see it as a solid comprehensive base to build geo content on if we have a full world list organized like this. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography/Bot#Creating lists. Please offer your thoughts thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an important project which I broadly support, and I encourage anyone watching this page to think about the issues and comment, here or on the relevant talk page. Geometry guy 22:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the chance you've been waiting for! ;)

...to do a peer review of the problem of Apollonius. ;) Won't you be so kind? I'm sure you'll set a good example for other mathematicians! :) Willow (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It will be a pleasure. I've been watching with great interest the lively activity on the page. With Barth, Eppstein, Ozob, Melchoir and R.e.b. involved. not to mention your good self, the article is blessed with expert editors and will surely go far. I guess that means I'd better be a really really tough reviewer :-) :-) Geometry guy 22:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind you being tough, but please be fast? I have to leave town this weekend to help with my sister's wedding; I'll be gone for a few weeks, so the FAC will have to wait until then. Thanks muchly for all your help; you know how much I appreciate everything about you, Willow (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sorry I didn't manage to get it done before you left: I tried to complete it yesterday morning, but RL called before I had time to write up all my comments... Hope you have (had) a nice break. Geometry guy 11:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I haven't left yet; I'm still packing and all that. I had to order a duplicate bridesmaid dress, due to what I hope is a manufacturer's defect. :P No rest for the wicked...

Your comments are very good, and of course you caught my egregious editorializing about how difficult it is to solve the poA "by eye", having so many degrees of freedom compared to angle bisection. Your other comments also opened my eyes to the corners I'd cut inadvertently in writing the article, and how much work I have left to do. Oh well, Willow (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Egregious editorializing is part of your charm :-) - indeed I sometimes wish we could do more of that, especially on articles like this. More seriously, if you can source the degrees of freedom issue (three vs. one I suppose), then this is a point worth making. Anyway, hopefully, it will not be you alone dashing round those corners. I'll at least try to help the helpers. ("Those that can, do..." oh dear...)

I hope the dress turns out well - and that you have some cute shoes to go with it :-) Have fun, Geometry guy 14:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Another request for a more flexible transclusion tool

Hello GG, as I a while ago, someone is requesting a tool to tranclude different sections on different pages. I'd like to read your comments. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I replied there: this is easy to do. Geometry guy 22:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

PR problems

Hi G guy, I am not sure how they did it, but Rio Grande Glaze Ware has no talk page, but has a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Rio Grande Glaze Ware/archive1. Also Wikipedia:Peer review/The Colbert/O'Brien/Stewart feud/archive1 is listed at User:VeblenBot/C/Current peer reviews as just The Colbert (assume this is a slash problem). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. The latter was a problem with the CF templates. In the former case, I guess they followed the link in the preview and forgot to save the talk page. Geometry guy 08:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much - I am never quite sure when it is a simple fix like the first case or something more complex liek the CF templates. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

PR suggestion

Ruhrfisch suggested i ask you about getting this tool thrown onto the peer review pages automagically? It sure helps me check links/etc at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Updating the WikiProject Systems with fields

Thanks for your adjustments of the Template:Sys rating. I created the 12 categories and it seems to work. I guess it will take a view days before the template updates the categorisation of all articles. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

My implementation isn't particularly robust. In particular, it requires that the fields are capitalized correctly. To make it more robust, a separate template is needed to process variants on the field name. See {{GA/Topic}} for an example of such a template. Geometry guy 20:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good start, and a simple solution. I guess I can remove most of the other categories and pages I created, while I was copying the WikiProject Math structure.

Now I am still very happy I started working with fields, especially because the fields of systems and systems science is so different. I has given me a better understanding of the separate fields. I have some ideas to improve the situation. But at the moment the variants on the field name doesn't seems to be a problem, because I assessed all articles so far and I check all new assessments. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent news and good luck with your work. Geometry guy 21:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I still have two questions:

1. the categorisation of NA class articles doesn't seem to work, see for example here
2. All non-biographical articles are listed under the T, see for example Category:Systems articles in Control theory.

Could you take a look at these thinks. Thanks. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Template:GATable

Well, it looks wonderful. Which is why parents should never be permitted to pass judgement on the appearance of their children. ;) Quick particulars:

1. I think the SVG question rune is the better default icon than SVG neutral. Truly, the editor does not know if an article is good or bad regarding a particular criterion at T=0; Neutral means that the editor is initially indifferent. Not quite the right initial frame of mind. If the editor remains ambivalent regarding a particular criterion, then he or she can let the default SVG question rune remain.
2. I surmise that you synchronize this template with the current state of WP:WIAGA so that it expands to the current criteria, whatever they may be; that makes me an adopter. I do think the use case remains problematical; typing into a table can be prone to error. I tend to type my comments up in a text editor; my interaction with the edit box is a brief paste, then preview. If I've pasted into the wrong part of the table, making a mess of the markup, then there's no great pain over cancelling the session and then pasting into a newly summoned edit box. Of course, no one is being forced to use this box; editors can take it or leave it, and for those of us who really like the side-by-side presentation of criterion and critique, the extra editing care is of no terrible concern.

I may have other comments. But Ciao Bella, the corgi who runs my life, wishes to have her walk now. I've been summoned... Gosgood (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've switched to question runes for all but the overall assessment (lack of knowledge about whether the article meets the criteria => open minded about the outcome). I realised the point about editing tables, which is why I provided a template for each row to hide most of the table code. Geometry guy 07:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Housekeeping Reminder

Hi G guy, since the end / beginning of the month is on us, I have made the new semi-automated PR archive for July (and did the rest of the year while I was at it).

I have mentioned this before, but with the bot doing most archiving, I would be fine if the translcuded PR pages no longer had links to edit the article or edit the article talk page. I know this would save space and perhaps would allow the check links tool to be added, per Ealdgyth's request above.

Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: VeblenBot

I use the page to keep track of new FACs. I'd just like for the page to be working as it was a few days ago again; I don't think the page needs any improvements. It was perfect as it was, at least to me. Gary King (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I wish it would go away. It doesn't reflect restarts. It's not always right. And people prematurely comment on FACs that aren't transcluded and end up being removed. But we know I'm a curmudgeon about such issues, so ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather watchlist it because when I click on a diff for WP:FAC, it has to load the whole page, which is not pleasant. Gary King (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was one the intended benefits. Geometry guy 08:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You sure can be, Sandy! These issues are flaws with the FAC process (other processes are no better): nominators have to do two separate things, and sometimes do only one of them. In fact, by using a bot, only one is necessary. Meanwhile, the bot generated list can be used to spot nominator errors, and I'm surprised it isn't used to do exactly that. Geometry guy 08:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I spot errors by directly checking the category :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly smarter than I am: comparing an alphabetical to a chronological listing would be way too hard for me. :-) Geometry guy 18:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As of last night (when I last looked), Venblot was alphabetical, too. The biggest problem I have with VenBlot is somebody's gonna scream someday about missing a restart. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Back to chrono now. Gary King (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate discussions without links; now I have to go look for it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

← User:VeblenBot/C/Wikipedia featured article candidates Gary King (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The alphabetical listing was a temporary glitch (Carl is away and a computer seems to have gone down). See here for VeblenBot pages, including those related to FA.

Restarts seem to cause you a lot of headaches. Closing as "no consensus" and inviting renomination would involve much less heat, and it would be more directed at the renominator, not you. Geometry guy 18:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Less heat for whom? Easy for you to say. Restarts work perfectly from my chair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Less heat for you, obviously (in the form of complaints from furious reviewers). But evidently I have misunderstood. Geometry guy 19:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a perfect example; I did not "fail" RCC. At that point, it was simply an unclear mess, and I wanted to encourage clear discussion. And, the "complaints from furious" reviewers and nominators come regardless of what I do :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team Proposals

Please comment on the current FA-Team proposals. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

GA programme

Dear Geometry Guy, I see you have added an noninclude to Talk:Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany/GA1. Is this something that I should have done as a matter of course. I am happy to complete such things - I did not because I believed that the "copy" into the subject talk page was removed by a bot at some point leaving a permanent link to the GA/1 archive. Would a simple ticklist for reviewers be an idea. The more I can do as a reviewer means that you and others do not have to run round checking for simple things. Ta Edmund Patrick – confer 16:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries, this is not particularly important: I was just on a cleaning spree, and noticed that the talk page was in the archive category. The copy of the subpage into the talk page is not removed by a bot, so if you use {{GAarchive}}, then strictly speaking you should either surround it with a noinclude, or yourself replace the "copy" on the article talk page by a permanent link to the archive. However, my personal view is that it is much easier simply not to use {{GAarchive}} at all. All the necessary steps to complete a review are documented at WP:GAN; this isn't one of them. Geometry guy 17:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite understand that, my one concern was if you do not tell people not to change something they do occasionally do so. (The voice of experience!) The {{GAarchive}} provides that message / notice. I am not totally happy with leaving it "blank" as GA/1s are here to provide a good clean record of a review. Edmund Patrick – confer 17:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I take your point, and at the moment it is up to the reviewer how they handle this issue, if at all. Here is what I do: change the message at the top of the review. Geometry guy 17:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

sorted copied into my help me files!!! for insert into top of GA review page. You are a star. Edmund Patrick – confer 18:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I might build a solution like this into the system (i.e., the message could be supplied by a template with a parameter which reviewers could change from "open" to "closed" when the review was done). That's a discussion to be had at WP:GAN at some point... Geometry guy 18:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

here I am again

can I ask a favour, can you keep an eye on Roman–Persian Wars as the second invited reviewer I recently noticed that the page was moved. This has broken the link to Talk:Roman-Persian Wars/GA1 as you can see here. I have asked the editor involved to undertake the job, but just in case. my skills are not high in the area, and I have yet to work out why the move, but I will! Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 18:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done the move so the review subpage matches the article. The move was done because the editor believes Roman-Persian is a disjunction, and disjunctions are indicated by an en-dash, not a hyphen. If consensus opposes this, both the article and the review page can be moved back. Geometry guy 18:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, enjoy the Saturday evening. Edmund Patrick – confer 19:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)