User talk:Geometry guy/Archive 23

Block

Note that the first comments in this discussion were originally posted at User talk:SilkTork.

Further to discussion on Matttise's talk page, I have blocked her for 12 hours. I will comment there shortly, but this is not my area of expertise and request that you review this block and revise the duration as you consider appropriate. Thanks. Geometry guy 22:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the time zones involved, it may be helpful to extend the block, with consideration for the best interests of the encyclopedia. Apologies for landing this issue on your doorstep. Geometry guy 23:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I support the block, and have said so on Mattisse's talkpage. Mattisse, however, must learn self-discipline, or some other solution will need to be found. So I suggest that we give Mattisse firm guidance on what she can and cannot do, and if when the block expires she ignores the guidance, we block her again - this time for a longer period. That is what she drew up in the Plan, and we need to follow that to see if it works. If not, then Mattisse may find herself facing more extreme sanctions from ArbCom. SilkTork *^YES! 00:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that and fully support such a plan. Geometry guy 00:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have extended the block by 24 hours because Mattisse had made a negative remark about Fainites and was refusing to strike it. SilkTork *^YES! 00:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree again with your action. Bringing up old news does not help to improve the encyclopedia, and Mattisse should not do this in her comments. Geometry guy 01:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If she strikes the comments concerned on her talk page and apologizes for assuming bad faith, then a few hours reduction of the block might be reasonable. Geometry guy 01:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sad this had to be done, but I think you were right. Mattisse is becoming her own worst enemy. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting here. I am also sad about it. I have extended the block, because I do not believe it should simply expire without discussion. Geometry guy 23:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's really painful to see her advisers put in this position, but since some are in private contact with her, I have to assume they know best how to proceed. I hope someone has explained to her that, in this context, GAN=GAR=same thing=evaluation of GA status. And that the reason I had to go on at length is because my misread of your diff caused a huge cockup in the Request for clarification, to which others had already reacted by the time I realized. I'm not sure if it was my cockup, or NYB's suggestion that she refrain from GA reviews for a while, but I suspect that the reason Fainites responded on that is when the trouble began after NYB's suggestion. I hope she can see NYB's feedback as only one possibility to avoid reopening the case. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Mattisse wanted to distinguish between cases where she has been a GAN reviewer and other situations. However, I agree that it is a level of detail not worth arguing over. More to-and-fro is not needed here. It may be considered ironic that the clarification page is now being shared with speed of light: escalation can happen when editors move at too high a velocity. De-escalation happens when editors slow down, pause, or reflect. Regarding NYB's suggestion, I commented a day or two ago at on his talk page. In particular, I refered to the tension that there is between no ownership of articles and the credit economy of Wikipedia. I think there could be a discussion worth having on this at some point, although this may not be the time. Geometry guy 08:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies if I made things less clear when intended the opposite. I was responding to comments about GANs/GARs in relation to Mattisses proposals, in an effort to define the areas in which there have been problems. Straightforward initial GANs do not seem to be a problem area.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies pretty much always help, so thanks for that. I would also encourage care in checking edit histories, as small misunderstandings can lead to misperceptions and even unnecessary conflict. I also understand that this is easier to say than do. Geometry guy 22:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I do generally check edit histories - just on this particular bit I hadn't realised there was an edit history to check! Be that as it may - it doesn't alter my basic point which is that Mattisse has not had difficulties with GANs as such - only when she joins in other GANs or GARs, or initiates GARs.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the less I understand why NYB suggested: "At this point, I am considering whether the best answer for all concerned might be to ask Mattisse, if she wishes to remain active as an editor, to edit primarily in mainspace and to leave process work (FAR, GA, etc.) and wikispace to others for a time." I'm not sure where he's going with that. Has anyone in that whole convoluted page asked for this as a remedy? I haven't. I've asked for the targeting and behaviors-- not the reviewing-- to stop, so I'm really confused about why he has proposed this. The idea that she can't review at GA seems to be what set off the problems the other day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think he suggested this because some reviews have been flashpoints. I see nothing wrong with proposing remedies to test the waters. If a proposal needs to be dropped, substantially revised, or merely tweaked, then that can happen. All proposals need the consensus of all acting arbitrators. Let us trust them to evaluate the evidence carefully, and reach conclusions that will help everyone work together better. Geometry guy 22:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not reviewed a GAN since the before that last arbitration against me. I have entered a few low-level comments, but have not given an indepth review of a FAC since the last arbitration against me. I no longer nominate, help to fix up. or nominate FARs. This should satisfy any editor who dislikes my activites in these areas. If ArbCom wants to instil an ban on FAC and FAR, that would be fine with me. I think there is no evidence to do so for GAN, since I have never had a problem with my GAN reviews. I will agree to be banned from GAR. I am a professional psychologist, and I understand professionals from a disciple should not comment on articles within their disciple on Wikipeida and are not welcome to do so. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I am a mathematical professional and my expertise is frequently welcomed here, because I believe that every edit I make should be judged on its own merits, not on any credentials. Your statement on psychologists is the kind of pointy statement you need to learn not to make. Geometry guy 22:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You proposed recently that I be barred from psychology articles, implying that the reason was that I was a professional. I am merely regurgitating what you said. Also, I think mathematics is not the same, as everyone with a Masters or less in psychology (many with no formal training but just pop pysch article readers) considers themselves an expert. I don't think that is true of mathematics.

However, I am willing to be banned from reviewing GAN, since the fact I haven't reviewed any since the last arbitration has not changed any views on the matter of my ability to review). I am willing not to participate in reviews of anything, not to copyedit articles that are striving for a review of anything, in any of the various review formats. —mattisse (Talk) 23:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, no, you are not repeating what I said. You are taking a proposal, elevating it to a principle, and then generalizing it to apply to all psychology professionals, not just your own situation. Posts like these escalate conflict and you need to learn to stop making them. I strongly encourage you, as other advisors have done, to walk away from the computer and spend some time reflecting on whether you want to contribute further to this encyclopedia in the long run and under what terms. Geometry guy 23:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Geometry guy, that is you opinion of what I was meaning when I wrote that. You are right that the reviews in which I had trouble dealt with the subject matter of psychology. The opinions I expressed regarding the articles in question were professionally, academically and ethically correct. Yet you suggest that I be barred from the subject matter of psychology. To me it was quite clear that you meant a bar only on me, not on other psychology professionals of equal education, training and experience. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A concern...

Check out User talk:Hamiltonstone#Your GA nomination of Bronwyn Bancroft. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It has always been the case that different reviewers interpret the GA criteria differently, and that some are more demanding than others, or have a better understanding of the criteria than others. Some of the editors I most admire can ask too much in their reviews, in my view (my ballpark for the GA level agrees pretty closely with Malleus's, and the consensus at GAR is usually, but not always, around the same level). This is why GA status is so mutable, and GAR is available to resolve disagreement.

One thing that is clearly inappropriate is placing review comments on user talk pages: review comments are about whether the article meets the criteria, not about the nominator (or indeed the reviewer), and such discussions need to take place on review pages which can be easily linked for future reference. I haven't reviewed the history in detail (I'd welcome a summary before investigating it, if that is necessary) and so have no view on "blame" (which may be unhelpful anyway) or solutions. However, it seems that a fresh review is underway on a review page, and GAR is still available if this course of action is contested.

I'd like to add one further personal comment to Ealdgyth. You posted an anti-flame barnstar here not so long ago and I appreciated it especially because I consider you an editor motivated by content above all else. While I understand that the title of this section (and similar comments posted to other users) concisely describes your concerns, I would encourage the use of less emotive headings. Geometry guy 22:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Gguy, I guess I did let the title get a bit out of hand. Refractored/changed. However, I do remain concerned at some things I see at GAN, and wonder what might be the best course for addressing these without adding too much "overhead" to the GA process. The "creeping" standards are a concern for me and many others, and this is something that does need to be addressed. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The simple answer is: we need more editors contributing regularly to WP:GAR and more editors initiating GAR's when they see a mismatch between an article or review and the GA criteria. Please do not be afraid to initiate GARs. They can happen at any time: if you are confident you can resolve the issue impartially as an individual reviewer, then an individual GAR is like a fresh GAN review. However, please, if you have any hesitation, open a community GAR. They are generally very cooperative, and sometimes result in remarkable fixes or mutual understanding and agreement between editors. There are some experienced editors who contribute regularly. The only issue at GAR is whether the article currently meets (or can easily be fixed to meet) the GA criteria: past history is irrelevant. Disputes have not been common recently, and these can usually be managed (e.g. by refactoring off-topic comments to the review talk page, just as delegates do at FAC). Geometry guy 22:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I will try. I had not expected my fall to get so busy .. I've barely had time to keep up with FAC (where, I think, I do incredibly useful work just keeping sourcing up to minimum standards) and with my rather lengthy watchlist. And thank you for the compliment. I do treasure your opinions, and really do admire the way you remain level headed. I'm no Giano or OR, but I do know I tend to sometimes be a bit harsher than should be expected. In this instance, I sat on my concerns for a day to let things cool off (should have done another day to get the heading under control!) Thanks, Gguy Ealdgyth - Talk 22:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries, Ealdgyth, and thank you in turn for your kind words. I know how busy you are and all the excellent work you do. My remarks are a general encouragement to all to nominate GARs and contribute to GAR discussions to improve the reliability and consistency of GA. GAR has been relatively lightly used recently, which is not typical for this time of year, in my experience. I also believe, and this may not be widely agreed, that it is fine for editors to nominate community GARs about which they have a strong opinion, so long as they then step back and let the community decide, providing only factual information to inform the discussion: problems tend to arise (unsurprisingly) when such nominators are determined to win the argument. Geometry guy 22:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse

Hi G guy I have given Mattisse a warning not to post any form of comment on another Wikipedia editor without first getting advice to make such a comment. I will let the other mentors/advisors know of this. I feel we need to stand firm on this as there seems now to be a general agreement that Mattisse's work is valuable to Wikipedia, but it is her personal comments on other editors that is causing friction. If we can assist Mattisse to get out of the habit of making ill-advised personal comments by showing her that if she ceases from making such comments her time on Wikipedia becomes more pleasant, then that would be a good value use of our time.

Mattisse doesn't handle stress situations very well, and tends to react by making more and more ill-advised comments both against other editors and on herself. Preventing Mattisse from making such comments is an essential part of the Plan that Mattisse herself drew up, and which was approved by ArbCom. It is also apparent that Mattisse responds better to strong direction than gentle explanations - when Mattisse is stressed she has little patience for long and subtle explanations, and does not pick up on hints. Instructions to Mattisse need to be clear, direct, short and strong.

What concerns me is that even at this point in her Wikipedia involvement she still doesn't quite understand how to behave, and feels that muttering and moaning is acceptable despite many warnings. She appears to take her cue from the bad examples of others, and feels justified in engaging in poor quality behaviour while others, especially respected others, "get away with it" as she would put it. I am firmly of the opinion that Mattisse is as much sinned against as sinning, and that there is some basis for her frustrations. However, I feel that there is little we or anyone else can do, if she is unable to control herself.

We can hope to modify her behaviour by firm guidance supported by sanctions when she errs - but unless she can take responsibility for herself, she will continue to get into conflict. We cannot even begin to seriously deal with any attacks on Mattisse as long as Mattisse herself is being provocative. Somebody has to stop riding the see-saw, and the onus is on Mattisse to stop first.

The question is: it is possible for Mattisse to control herself in the long term? SilkTork *^YES! 09:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I support SilkTork's a warning to Mattisse not to post any form of comment on another Wikipedia editor without first getting advice. Of course that is an necessary but not insufficient condition - edits and comments on content can also be disruptive, and there have been concerns that Mattisse has indulged in feuding and harassment; but I see no simple way to identify these, and we may have to deal with any such cases as they arise, at least until we built up some "case law".

I also agree that "Instructions to Mattisse need to be clear, direct, short and strong."

And I agree with "Mattisse is as much sinned against as sinning". Bad behaviour by others' at Mattisse's expense will be undermnine her efforts to improve her own behaviour. I therefore suggest:

• Complaints raised at Mattisse's mentoring pages must be civil and objective. If necessary we should refuse to progress a complaint until all hostile language in it has been removed / replaced.
• We should be prepared to intervene if others use the ArbCom verdict as a pretext for turning Mattisse into a target. In addition clealry hostile language, that should also include gaming the verdict at the original ArbCom case, the current Clarification and any others - for example if Mattise is forbidden to interact with editor X, and X use this to cut Mattise out of discussions in which she was invlved before X arrived.

Finally, we need a plan for positive behaviours that will overwrite the negative ones - otherwise the negative ones will return in time. --Philcha (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

My comment regarding FACs was just copying [1] and I had no idea it was an offense. I wanted to point out that out of 172 reviews, I had difficulty with perhaps four reviews, leaving 168 or so positive contributions. So much emphasis has been put on those few problematic reviews. I am sorry for making the post. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 13:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess this is reasonable considering the circumstances. To be honest, I think this arbcom process is overly lengthy and it is hard to imagine even the most polite of editors coming out of this without being uncivil on one occasion or another. To Mattisse's credit, she has always apologized, refactored, and moved away from the brink. On the downside, she does have the tendency to respond at length to everything and that increases the probability that something negative will get said, directly or indirectly. This restriction should help. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I slightly regret that it seems to rule out the possibility of Mattisse making a clear compliment to another person, on those occasions when she might be interested in doing so. And I do hope that therre will at least be the potential to reexamine this later. But, at the moment, it seems reasonable to me. John Carter (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I really do insist that Mattisse gets out of my face. What was the point of comparing the number of FACs I've contributed to to the number she's contributed to (whatever "contributed to" means)? What was that comparison meant to achieve? I have to say as well that I find the "as much sinned against as sinning" comment above to be absolutely hilarious, and a very good example of why Mattisse's mentoring hasn't and won't work. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize deeply to you Malleus. The point was not to diminish you in any way, but rather to show that I have contributed a large number of positive interactions to FAC compared to a very small number of problematic ones. I only mentioned you because I found that link on your talk page[2] and used it for reference only. It was bad judgment on my part to use your name. My motives was not to harm you. It is only because I have a high regard for you article contributions that I used your name. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 14:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No harm done Mattisse, and I accept your apology. I've got no idea what that comparison posted on my talk page was meant to demonstrate, except the obvious point that many others have done more work at FAC than I have. Many others have done more work everywhere than I have though, so you shouldn't be comparing yourself to me anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That the mentors have recently been more proactive is why I was willing to endorse Carcharoth's latest motions in lieu of stronger sanctions. On the other hand, comments like "as much sinned against as sinning" lead to concern that we may go back to the days of "shooting the messenger"; I hope that doesn't happen. If the motions get additional support from other arbs, at some point, we will need to have a hypothetical discussion of how to handle any potential issues at FAC; having that discussion now may just inflame, but I remain concerned that I would never file a report during an ongoing FAC (as that could prejudice the outcome of the FAC), nor would I want to see a committee managing a FAC. Could you all possibly discuss among yourselves how such an eventuality would be handled, even if it now appears unlikely ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I wish several people would stop repeating the phrase "shooting the messenger". No-one's in danger of grievous bodily harm or even virtual WP harm. Use of hostile or incivil phrasing in complaints about Mattisse (or anyone else) making it difficult to work out what the actual problem was (especially if accompanied by verbosity or unclarity) and more difficult to work out a suitable remedy. I hope this point does not need further explanation. --Philcha (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And "as much sinned against as sinning" is equally harmful. If you all will stay on track this time, things will surely go better. An awareness of when "hostile or incivil phrasing" is impacting outcomes on all sides would be helpful. I hope this point does not need further clarification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, both metaphorical turns of phrase are inappropriate here. While in a casual context they can translate into more reasonable statements, such as "this is not the fault of one person alone" and "don't confuse bad news with the person delivering it", more care with words is needed by text communication due to the ease with which misunderstandings arise. Both phrases apportion blame, which is inappropriate; they may even suggest intention, which assumes bad faith about the "sinners" and the "shooters", while elevating to a fact a perception that the "messenger" is uninvolved, or suggesting that the "sinned against" should not be held accountable for their actions.

SilkTork's post and Philcha's response that began this thread make it utterly plain that Mattisse will be held to account for her actions.

Perhaps a cultural reference will lighten my reply: none of the editors here have the insecurities and prejudices of Basil Fawlty, who might have said "Don't mention the metaphor. I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it". Geometry guy 23:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

---

I'm drawing a line, not to forbid further discussion of the dangers of metaphor onwiki (above the line), but to move on to more substantive issues.

1. I'm heartened to see a consensus among advisors for "clear, direct, short and strong" guidance of Mattisse: stated directly by SilkTork and Philcha, implicitly endorsed by John Carter and RegentsPark, and now explicitly by me.
2. Mattisse's post on Carcharoth's talk page is the kind of thing that has been ignored in the past. I think if advisors had ignored it in this case, it would have remained a footnote example. However, we didn't, and this led to further discussion above. The balance is rather difficult to achieve. In this case Mattisse apologized to Malleus and also to Carcharoth (although he asked her not to reply on his talk page) and has returned to work on what I believe may be her 100th DYK. I just want to be sure that this kind of intervention is preferable to letting things slide occasionally. I think it is, as Mattisse needs clear boundaries, but am open-minded. If so, then I hope other editors will understand that advisors are highlighting the issue to improve Mattisse's behaviour, not to escalate the situation. If the Request for Clarification asks us to do this, we'd appreciate some slack when we act, and notification when we fail to act.
3. What to do if Mattisse contributes to conflict at FAC, when FAC delegates are unable to alert advisors? I don't actually see a COI here, as alerts are intended to be and should be neutral information ("Please look at this diff to see if there is a problem"). If delegates feel unable to raise such alerts, then other editors (such as nominators, who may in fact be more involved) should do so (in a neutral way). How will they know? Unfortunately I see no clear answer other than delegates advising them of Mattisse's situation. I'm not sure if this is more or less neutral than an impartially phrased alert. Any better suggestions would be welcome.
4. How to avoid other editors escalating conflict? The main way is to stop Mattisse contributing to any such escalation. However, other small measures may help. I would like to think that anyone trusted by Mattisse can protect any page in her user and user talk space. Such protection may prevent her from escalating conflict against her own best interests, and may also provide her with some security. This includes the monitoring page, and so the views of arbitrators would be helpful here. Any such page protection has the same goal as blocking Mattisse: to prevent escalation of conflict and harm to the encyclopedia. It should never be, or viewed as, suppression of disagreement: further discussion can always happen elsewhere.
5. This brings me to a very personal point. My RfA platform included a statement that I did not wish to use the tools for dealing with vandalism and editor conduct. Over the past 2 years, I have stuck to this. Apart from the recent block of Mattisse, I used the block tool to stop a malfunctioning bot recently, but that is about it. If anyone has any concerns about me using the tools to block Mattisse or protect her user space, please let me know.

That's all. Geometry guy 23:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Re No. 2: If the Request for Clarification asks us to do this, we'd appreciate some slack when we act, and notification when we fail to act. The language on the Request is still vague, but there is some reference to minor events, or unwarranted, or some such language, which is entirely unclear. I would view, for example, the incident on Carcharoth's talk page as "minor", and don't really understand how or when others are supposed to "report" incidents under this vague terminology and implied threat as currently worded on the Request for clarification. Given that wording, I would hesitate to bring the incident on Carcharoth's page to mentor attention.

Re No. 3: I'm not sure how others might handle it in the eventuality there is an issue at FAC, but I would (hopefully) never report anything during an ongoing FAC. If there were problems on a FAC, and no one else reported it, I would wait 'til the FAC closed.

Re No. 4: I think you've already got the answer :) In the last incidents, everyone saw action from the mentors, and no one stepped in: it wasn't necessary. HTH, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that does help: re #4, I hope that would be the outcome in most cases; re #2, I personally would not expect other editors to notify on minor issues, but if they are highlighted by advisors, this should not make an incident worse if no prior complaint was made; re #3, if matters get seriously out of control during an FAC it is likely that advisors will hear about it one way or another – if not a report post FAC close would be fine. Geometry guy 00:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

GA class medicine articles

G guy, when I get the time (ha!), I need to start through Category:GA-Class medicine articles to review for overreliance on primary sources, relative to WP:MEDRS. For reasons that I don't understand, Wikipedia:Good article criteria highlights the Scientific citation guidelines, but not (for example) other widely accepted citation guidelines like MilHist or MEDRS. What is the reasoning for highlighting one set of citation guidelines and not others? Does it even make sense (relative to WIAGA) for me to review the medical articles for compliance with MEDRS? Even without considering MEDRS, there are numerous articles there that shouldn't be GA (see for example Fetal alcohol syndrome); where would I put a list of those? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to check health and medicine GAs: all input is welcome.

Concerning your questions, the GA criteria are intended to reflect basic policies, rather than elaborations of these, so that the criteria are easy to understand by as wide a range of editors as possible and are as far as possible a one-stop-shop for reviewers. Incorporating every WikiProject guideline would permit a type of instruction creep that is contrary to the spirit of GA: see e.g. this dispatch for some of my views.

The scientific citation guidelines are a rare exception, partly for historical reasons going back before my wikitime (the way inline citations were introduced for GAs). However, they are not tied to a particular WikiProject, have been very stable, and clarify a misconception that all information on Wikipedia needs to be cited by a specific reference at the end of the sentence. I would prefer the reference to them to be in a footnote as additional information (and it was for some time).

None of the above, however, means that WikiProject guidelines are irrelevant to the GA criteria, as the former may reflect consensus interpretations of policies that are part of the latter. Their relevance is a matter for reviewers to decide, and is discussed at WP:GAR when disagreements arise. So to the extent that WP:MEDRS informs the interpretation of WP:V for health and medicine GAs, feel free to use it.

The older GAs among these articles have not yet been checked as part of GA sweeps: see Wikipedia:GAPQ/SL#Biology_and_medicine. Just over a year ago, I was even optimistic enough to believe that I might find the time and energy to do it myself.

Perhaps we can collaborate. You will save reviewers' work if you can mark a GA as "okay" at sweeps. On the other hand, if there are problems and you don't have time to reassess an article yourself, use the {{GA request}} mechanism: I (or other reviewers) might thus be encouraged to return to an important task that has been neglected for far too long. Geometry guy 20:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I won't have time to mark something OK at Sweeps, because that would require a comprehensive review. Maybe (if I find time) I'll set up a User subpage to begin working through these, and then you can follow there. Will see how my time goes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Good luck! Even prioritizing the worst offenders is helpful. Geometry guy 21:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Started at User:SandyGeorgia/GA class medicine articles ... will chip away at it as I have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Belated thanks for starting this. I'll also contribute when time permits (I may have some this weekend) - help from other editors (which there has been already!) would be appreciated. Geometry guy 21:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

So much to do, so little time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Peer review vs. FAC Signpost Dispatch needed

See Wikipedia talk:Featured content dispatch workshop#Peer review vs. FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Penrose tiling

Was just wondering why you had replaced or removed all the references to Eric Hwang's Penrose Tilings and Quasicrystals in Penrose tiling ? Seems like a good enouh source to me. I have restored one of the references, as a source for the connection between Gummelt's decagonal covering and quasicrystals. If you don't think Hwang is a good source for this then let's just remove that whole paragraph from the article. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome, Gandalf!

The problem with Hwang's site is that it is a self-published source, with, as far as I can tell, no editorial oversight. See also [3] and [4] for his credentials: he is an "interactive designer" with a BSc in mathematics and computer science, but there's no evidence of relevant publications or external recognition.

I'm trying to give the article a bit of a polish. So much has been written about Penrose tilings that it should be possible to find everything in reliable sources. The connection between the decagonal covering and quasicrystals may be tricky, but lets try to find something: after all, Hwang must have got his information from somewhere! I'm also looking for a source for the existence and characterization of the two Penrose tilings with (global) 5-fold symmetry. Geometry guy 12:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"There are two ways to obtain aperiodic tilings with 5-fold symmetry about a single point. They are known as the "star" and "sun" configurations" - Weisstein, Eric W. "Penrose Tiles". MathWorld.. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! MathWorld is fine as a source if needed, but it is a tertiary source (and tends to plug Mathematica), so if we can find the secondaries, so much the better. I've been following up some of the references cited there. Miles of Tiles is on Google books, and has a section on rotational symmetry, but it doesn't seem to be very helpful. Grunbaum and Shephard is in my university library, and I should have time to check it out tomorrow. I also found "Quasicrystals and geometry" by Marjorie Senechal: this could be good for the link with quasicrystals as well as the pentagrids, cut and project, and up-down generation. Geometry guy 18:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver

		WikiProject Vancouver
		You have been invited to participate in Operation Schadenfreude to restore the article Vancouver back to featured article status.

- Dear FA Team member, we could use your help if you're available. Mkdw^talk 06:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Philcha ill, have to bale out of GA reviews

I'm very sorry, I am ill - I can read words but cannot write (I often write gibberish), and most of this post is pasted words found in other places. The GA Reviews I started for others will need to be done by others - Talk:Bix Beiderbecke/GA1, Talk:St. Boniface General Hospital (Winnipeg)/GA1 and Talk:Eustrombus gigas/GA1. I am also 99% done with Warcraft: Orcs & Humans, which Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû is reviewing, and hope I can simply finish this. Dragon's Egg is waiting for review and I may finish the review if easy. Sorry for baling out. --Philcha (talk) 07:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Geometry guy, this is not a joke. I am ill. Please get GA reviewers for Talk:Bix Beiderbecke/GA1, Talk:St. Boniface General Hospital (Winnipeg)/GA1 and Talk:Eustrombus gigas/GA1. Sorry, --Philcha (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Philcha, I'm sorry that you are unwell, and I wish you a speedy recovery. There's no need for you to apologize! I will see what can be done with respect to those reviews. Geometry guy 11:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Philcha. I have read through these reviews. Your approach is very detailed and intense, which may not be good for your health. One of the great benefits of GA is that no single editor is responsible for the outcome: it is a collective effort by all of us to improve the encyclopedia. "Mistakes" (e.g. reviews that miss a point) are not a problem because they can easily be fixed. Reviewers do not need to be the ultimate arbiter of every nomination, they just need to do a reasonable job to check whether the article is readable, verifiable, broad, stable, neutral and free. Already then the article is probably better than 98% of the encyclopedia. If a review misses an issue, the article can be delisted, renominated, brought to GAR and so on. This is not a problem and there is a splendid community willing to help. Geometry guy 23:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've thought much the same thing. GAN ought not to be the equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition, that's what FAC's for. You're trying to do too much Philcha, rest and get better. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Geometry guy, I signed up to review Dragon's Egg and then felt I wasn't up to it and removed my name. I fear I may have accidently removed Dragon's Egg from GAN, as it is no longer there. What to do? (Also, I have asked Wehwalt to help with it, since he is familiar with the book.) —mattisse (Talk) 13:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  Philcha nominated it, but didn't add the talk page template. It is still on the list and I've added the talk page template. Geometry guy 23:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you muchly. —mattisse (Talk) 23:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Geometry guy 23:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Area of a disc

Although I have done many GAN and FAC reviews, I really don't know what to make of this article, having foolishly signed up to review it. Please see my first comment on the GA review page.

Are maths topics different from other GANs?

Is the content stable - the talk page suggests an element of WP:OWN?

Should I withdraw from reviewing this article?

I don't normally ask for help with reviewing, but I know you've seen this article, and any guidance would be helpful. Incidentally, sorry to read about Pilcha, he's a good reviewer, and I welcome his rigorous style since I send most of my GAs to FAC Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jimfbleak, welcome and thanks for your comments both here and in the review. Here are some replies.

• Maths articles are not different from other GANs, but the science citation guidelines do apply to them, which means that matters of uncontroversial knowledge within the discipline do not require individual citation. However, one should expect at least one or two citations to standard textbooks or authoritative sources per section to meet WP:V.
• The content is stable. Although the main contributor to the article is an editor with strong views, not all of them in alignment with Wikipedia norms, he has not contributed to Wikipedia for nearly a year. For instance, several editors have commented on the prose style: he would be able to defend it as encyclopedic, but it is more like a textbook than is generally accepted by Wikipedia content review processes.
• Please do review the article. The nominator appears not to be a contributor, and may simply have noticed, like you, the work that has gone into the article.

The uncited "onion proof" and "generalizations" sections can be reasons to fail the article immediately if you wish to do so. If not, I am willing to help provide additional citations for these and other sections, rework the prose, and make other minor fixes. You may of course still conclude thereafter that the article does not pass: that is a decision for the reviewer alone. Geometry guy 19:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

PR

Thanks for doing that - I do the monthly PR chores so infrequently that I forget your handy cheat sheet is there. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I Miss You (Miley Cyrus song)

I've had a look and made a couple of comments at the review. Generally I think it's OK for GA now, but if it was my review I'd want the issues I raised to be fixed before I listed it. Your call though, of course. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Malleus - that's a big help. You caught some things I missed and reminded me to recheck the lead. Geometry guy 09:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So depressing

Haven't we all got better things to do? Why can't Mattisse just let it go and move on. Life's not fair, life will never be fair; in fact life's a bitch and then you die. I thought everyone knew that. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have advised Mattisse repeatedly that life is not fair. I hate having to spend my wikitime on this kind of thing. Maybe we should set up Wikipedia:WikiDepressives Anonymous. No, strike that, bad idea :-) Geometry guy 21:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I learned something from my two train wrecks at RfA, which was that there's no point in arguing with someone who's made their mind up, no matter how wrong they are. Mattisse has so much to offer, if only ... maybe you should encourage her to stand at RfA, to learn the same lesson that I did. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Geometry guy 23:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have learned that there is no point in contributing to FAC, FAR, or improving FA articles. Probably there is no point in getting involved with GAN articles; I am marginally open minded on that last issue, as GAN is so much more pleasant than the others. So I have learned some things. Further, I have zero desire to be an admin, and would not accept it if handed to me on a silver platter. A difference, I believe, between me and Malleus. Never in my wildest dreams do I deisre to rum for RFA. Not my type of thing. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 02:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't accept it if it was handed to me on a silver platter either Mattisse, so we're not so different in that respect at least. Heck, I haven't even accepted rollbacker. This is not the place to discuss it, but my firm belief is that wikipedia's governance is corrupt and corrupting. I also believe that to pretend that it isn't is just as corrupt, but I recognise that it isn't for everyone to take such a hopelessly principled stand and bugger the consequences ... on reflection perhaps we're more similar than I'd thought; you hold individuals to account, whereas I rail against the system that made them the way they are, and allows them to get away with it. Just a different approach to the same underlying problem, perhaps. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't have "rollback"; no one ever asked me if I wanted it and I don't even know what it is. And yes, I rail against the individuals who make up the "system" as I do not believe there is a system independent of the individuals who perpetuate it. There is no system without those who run it and others who condone it. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Take heart from the fact that you're a trusted Autoreviewer Mattisse. I'm not even that. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, you should contribute in whatever way will enable you to stick to your plan. Geometry guy 10:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

New pages per Request for clarification

G guy, once the new pages are set up (Monitoring, Alerts), per User:Mattisse/Plan:

"I must avoid making statements that I will not return to a forum, as that is an indeterminate statement implying no time limit and opinions will vary as to when, if ever, I could return. If I make such a statement, I must give a timeframe and adhere to it."

Mattisse's statements subsequent to the initiation of the Request for clarification that she'll abandon DYKs and agrees not to involve herself in FAC and FAR should be noted somewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

These comments of 8 December and 12 December and related threads have been noted. Geometry guy 10:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Taken to User talk:Mattisse. Initial post retained for reference. Geometry guy 21:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

My comments linked to above were made in the context of the conversation on the evolving "Clarification" and were not intended to be reified. The Clarification has not been settled and I do not intend to do anything more than follow their strictures. As stated previously, only statements with definite time frames are to be taken literally. To say that I will not do DYKs in response to a casual comment on my talk page means "for now" as I made clear on the DYK page. (I tend to to dozens of DYKs at once and get burned out and so stop for a while.) As for FAR, FAC, processes, I will abide by the Clarification mandates. FA processes are much less rewarding and massively more draining and more punishing than DYK or GAN so the likelihood for my engagement in the future is dramatically less. (But nothing is permanent. Change on Wikipedia should be welcomed and not forbidden, and evolving statements should not be stored to use as traps.) I will follow the Clarification outcome regarding FA processes as well as other processes. If the Clarification mandates it, I will also refrain from improving, correcting spelling and grammar, evaluating sources and such for articles that already at FA status. I used to try to check the "Main Page" article for errors but will no longer do that for the time being. I'll let the errors remain for now. I used to be told to comment on the article talk page, but since that seems to enrage FA article owners, I will no longer do so for FA articles for now. To repeat, I will abide by the Clarification outcome. Remarks where I am thinking out loud or sending up trial balloons to my mentors or other should not be used as attempts to trap me in the future. Rather than follow my every trial remark to my mentors or to posters on my talk page, let's all agree to follow the directions of the ArbCom. It is agreed that we are all human here, isn't it? And after all, the cultural atmosphere dominating at the FA processes may change in the future and become more pleasant and rewarding. Anything can happen, so no comment or "thinking out loud" statement that I made or will make should be considered permanent to use as a trap, as all that does is shut down on wiki conversation between me an my advisers, not a goal to be sought. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I repeat that I have noted the above posts by Mattisse and related threads. Regarding 8 December, the thread is archived here and continues with the statement "I am quite willing to wait and will not review dyks for now". While this may be regarded as a minor failure to stick to the plan, this was a period of tension which ultimately resulted in a 24 hour block for Mattisse. I do not propose any action beyond noting the thread.

Concerning the second quote, while free discussion between Mattisse and her advisors onwiki should not be discouraged, Mattisse has repeatedly stated during the Clarification that she wishes to avoid FAC and FAR. I would be happy to discuss with other advisors our response to this. If you (Sandy) would like to make any suggestions, we will take them into consideration. Geometry guy 21:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I apologize for any misunderstood statements. I mistakenly believed that in the Clarification, as in an Arbitration, statements and views can be fairly freely discussed and tossed around in the interests of open communication. If I was wrong about that, then I have already been punished for it. As far as the dyk statement, I apologized on Ucucha's talk page, which he gracefully accepted. He did not seem to think my statement was a big deal in the long run and complimented me on my dyk work and encouraged me to continue. I find such communication fruitful and helpful and it is a shame that the rules in My Plan effectively prevent casual human communication between me and the editors I work with. Ironically, while the intent of the plan (I thought) was to further good working relationships with others, the effect of the plan is to sever my communications with other editors. I will make every effort to cut down my posts anywhere on wiki to the bare minimum. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem is not that you communicate your views to other editors, but how you communicate them. There are better ways to forge good working relationships with other editors than to exaggerate your position or feelings and then retract. Geometry guy 22:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I will keep your words in mind and try to find better ways of communicating. I am learning! Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying here and good luck! Geometry guy 10:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Motion's regarding Mattisse

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion amending Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse The full voting and discussion for the original clarification and motions can be found here

• Mattisse (talk · contribs) is placed under a conduct probation for one year. Any of Mattisse's mentors may impose sanctions on his or her own discretion if, despite being warned or otherwise advised, Mattisse repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to any expected standards of behavior and decorum.
• Editors are reminded that baiting, antagonistic comments, and other such behavior is disruptive. Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to handle such circumstances as they would any other disruptive conduct, including appropriate warnings and advice, short page bans, as well as escalating blocks for repeated or egregious misconduct.
• Editing of the the page User:Mattisse/Monitoring, as well as its talk page and any other pages created for the purposes of carrying out the mentorship, shall be limited to Mattisse (talk · contribs) and her mentors for the duration of the mentorship. Users wishing to comment upon any aspect of the mentorship may contact the mentors directly, or on a subpage designated for such a purpose. Modified by next two motions.
• "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts" will be set up for the community to report issues to the mentors.
• User:Mattisse/Monitoring is moved to "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring".

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Original Annoucement

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Gödel number/Comments

Talk:Gödel number/Comments appears to be a test page, so I've nominated it for speedy deletion.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — sligocki (talk) 09:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It was a comment to sign and date a maths rating. I will give the article a fresh review for the maths wikiproject when I have time. Geometry guy 20:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Summary split question regarding HMS Belfast (C35)

Your input would be welcomed at Talk:HMS Belfast (C35)/GA1 regarding if a Summary style split is appropriate. SilkTork *^YES! 17:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Geometry guy 20:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The matter is now resolved - the article doesn't need splitting. SilkTork *^YES! 08:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse Alerts Page

I have created the alerts page with a simple placeholder. I was unsure on the format to be used and having queried with an arbitrator there is no simlar page to base it off and I was told that its probably down to the mentors to build the page. Ill be more than happy to lend a hand if you wish. Ping me if you do. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 19:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that, although, ironically, the monitoring page was the best page to base the alerts page on! Geometry guy 20:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to above: Yes I could certainly understand that.

Response to talk page: No worries, and I see no problem with you making changes. How the pages work should be based on what works best for the mentors, not how someone thinks it would work in thier own world. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 20:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. One of the problems with having these pages in Arbitration space is the automatic "Advice for editing Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration" which appears when you edit a page. Not only is this banner out of date, but it isn't appropriate for the monitoring and alerts pages. Is there a way to turn it off selectively, do you know? Geometry guy 20:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert but ill look into it and get back to you asap. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 20:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm looks like this is trickier to work out than i thought. Ill make some enquiries and get back to you when i have something meaningful to say. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 21:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for looking into this. Any help you can provide is welcome. Geometry guy 14:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I Miss You (Miley Cyrus song) bis

I think I addressed all issues that were brought up. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 01:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I will take another look, but I note that you haven't edited the article. Geometry guy 10:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Philcha's GAs - many thanks for covering

Many, ..., many thanks, for covering some of my reviews and organise - and I know you were already busy. --Philcha (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

		The Good Friend Award
		When I really need you, G'guy - from --Philcha (talk) 07:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I was happy to help out. I hope I can infer from your message that you are now recovering or have recovered from your illness. Geometry guy 14:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Geometry guy, you may have relevant expertise to contribute to the AfD for the biography of David_J._Simms, a professor of mathematics who appears to have written a couple of books on geometry. Happy Holidays --JN466 17:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. David Eppstein is an expert on this area of notability and has commented with thought and measured good sense as usual. Geometry guy 22:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Geometry guy!

Hey, have a wonderful holiday, and please know that I appreciate the precarious and awkward position you volunteered to do in mentoring Mattisse. You handle it with grace and class. Nothing but happiness for you this season. --Moni3 (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to express my complete and utter agreement with every word Moni has written above. :) --JN466 14:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm always grateful for such kind words, especially from editors I respect and admire, like yourselves. Regarding Mattisse, I've appreciated the wisdom and grace you have both shown by giving the process the space to work, and concentrating on our common goals rather than returning to points of disagreement. I hope you are both enjoying the winter break as I am. Best wishes for 2010. Geometry guy 22:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings and all that ...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

	<font=3> Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and all the best in 2010! Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both! I had a great Christmas and hope you did too. I wish you all the best for 2010. Geometry guy 22:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

A noiseless patient spider, I mark'd where on a little promontory it stood isolated, Mark'd how to explore the vacant vast surrounding, It launch'd forth filament, filament, filament, out of itself, Ever unreeling them, ever tirelessly speeding them. And you O my soul where you stand, Surrounded, detached, in measureless oceans of space, Ceaselessly musing, venturing, throwing, seeking the spheres to connect them, Till the bridge you will need be form'd, till the ductile anchor hold, Till the gossamer thread you fling catch somewhere, O my soul." —"A Noiseless Patient Spider" by Walt Whitman Happy New Year Awadewit (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

FA-Team revival

I've made a proposal to bring the FA-Team out of inactivity—with a mission a bit different than we're used to. This is just a generic note I'm sending to members asking for their input. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a great idea. I've signed up for coffee... unsurprisingly! Geometry guy 22:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

Greetings, Geometry guy. Just wondering with a nod to this what you thought of the progress (if any) of the Jimmy Wales article over the year? Regards,  Skomorokh  19:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear from you! Well, the article is certainly improving, but it still doesn't quite manage to be an objective encyclopedia piece. You can still tell that it is written by wikipedians, and unencyclopedic motivations are still visible in some of the content. I don't know if that's what you wanted to hear, but that is how I see it. Geometry guy 22:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I much prefer honest judgements of poor quality than guarded praise. I'd ultimately like it to be an exemplary proof that we are capable of being thorough and objective on the most divisive of topics. If you get a chance over the coming weeks/months to give a cold-eyed appraisal I'd be willing to put in a bit of legwork in knocking it into shape. Cheers,  Skomorokh  23:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and I totally support your goal here. I will try to find the time to make such an appraisal. Geometry guy 23:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review glitch

Hi G-guy, I stabilized Wikipedia:Peer review/November 2009 and the top PR shows, but without the header. I have no idea what the problem is. Am working my way through the rest of the monthly PR chores. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I am all done - I even made the new Veblenbot category (Carl sent me an email on how to do that). If you could double check that I did everything OK, I would appreciate it. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You done good, methinks. Sorry I wasn't around to do the update myself, but I'm glad Carl has let you update the VeblenBot list. You don't need me adding to the chorus of appreciation for your work at PR, so let me simply wish you a Happy New Year. Geometry guy 22:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Nehrams, you may not still be watchlisting this, but let me say that your steadfast dedication to GA Sweeps is an example to be admired by all. Without you, the original goals and the determination to realise them would have been forgotten. If I were into giving out barnstars, you would certainly have one from me for this. I hope we can finish off the last few hundred articles in the next month or two. Geometry guy 22:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Geometry guy,

I am most grateful for all you have done for me and I am determined not to let you down. You are deeply appreciated. I hope my future editing will never give you cause for concern. Please accept my wishes for a wonderful New Year. Warmest regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Mattisse, and a Happy New Year to you also. I very much appreciate your determination to refocus on content, and rise above past disputes. I very much hope that in the next year, you will have the confidence, respect, and self-control to need no longer the support of mentors. In the meanwhile, we are here to help you in whatever way we can. Geometry guy 22:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Todd Manning article for GA status

Hey, Geometry guy. You probably don't remember me, but I bet you remember the Todd Manning article. It's been quite some time since you last judged this article, and it has been significantly fixed up since then. Would you mind assessing it for GA once more? Flyer22 (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I do remember you, and I remember the article. You've done a lot of good work, but it might be better to get input from a reviewer who has not seen the article before. My gut reaction is the article is a bit on the long side (this may be a 3b issue). The prose also still needs some work, but I might be of more assistance as a copyeditor than a reviewer (just let me know when it is under review). Good luck, anyway. Geometry guy 22:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I just nominated it some moments ago. It is pretty long, but is that really a problem...considering that plenty of GA and FA articles are just about 94 kilobytes long or longer? It was longer than that, and the main reason I created the Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke rape storylines article was to cut down on some of that length. As for copyediting, I would definitely appreciate your help in that field. Any help you can offer for this article, whether cutting down on some of the information because it is now covered in the Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke rape storylines article or can be covered there, or whatever. Flyer22 (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Length is not per se a problem, but unnecessary length and detail might be: articles of 94kb or more do happen, but they generally concern irreducibly complex issues such as evolution :-) rather than a single character in a soap. More use of summary style and spinout articles may help. Good luck with the nomination anyway. I'm not competent enough to make cuts, but I can make copyedits. Geometry guy 23:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at everything in the article, I am not sure what could be cut out paragraph-wise, other than the Todd one-liner joke references (which would only reduce the size to 93 kilobytes). Other than that, all that stuff in the main article is important and especially relevant to Todd. To put some of that in the Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke rape storylines article would make that article more about Todd than about the Todd and Marty rape storylines. Yes, the Todd Manning article is "too long," but that cannot be helped. In the same way that it seems that the Changeling (film) article cannot help but be as long as it is. Todd is a soap opera character, but he is not the usual, non-notable kind. And because soap operas have more episodes than prime time shows, and usually last longer than prime time shows, it can be more complicated. I have not even covered all of his notable storylines; though I will create a separate article for that, with creator and actor/actress commentary, if I decide to cover that matter.

You are more than welcome to copyedit this article at any time. After all, Wikipedia created WP:OWN for a reason. In fact, I am very much hoping that you copyedit it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Join a worthy project...

Wikipedia:WikiProject Magical Realism Reconsidered! Awadewit (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks worthy indeed! Thanks for all your good wishes, Awadewit: I will be glad to join in later in the semester, once I am sure I have the time. Geometry guy 22:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

content court of appeals

• I'd be interested in your take on my suggestion made on User talk:Cla68. Reply here or there, whichever seems best. Tks! • Ling.Nut 11:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

  Well, it is a nice idea. A lot of strife on Wikipedia centres on controversial topics and associated content disputes. It is hard work for ArbCom to handle both editor conduct and any underlying content issues. I don't know whether a new idea like this is likely to fly, but it is certainly worth thinking about new ways to resolve content disputes. Geometry guy 22:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The existing content dispute process... I saw a huge forest of links atop a page. I abandoned the idea of entering, esp. considering that no one is ever helpful anywhere on Wikipedia. Does it really function, or is it a MacGuffin? I strongly suspect the latter • Ling.Nut 09:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As in the focus on issues at the beginning that become increasingly unimportant towards the end? Perhaps. I only have significant experience of user conduct dispute resolution. A cynic might suggest that such RFCs are initiated simply to tick a box prior to an arbcom case. However, they do also draw an editor's attention to community concerns about their editing (e.g., for NancyHeise recently).

Similarly, whatever the outcome at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Ling.Nut (the obvious choice is no action), you are probably more aware now than before that these articles are under probation, and all contributions related to them should be made with great care. Geometry guy 23:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Good Samaritan law GA reassessment

Do I need to close the individual review than move it to a group assessment? Or can we just continue one here with the Good Samaritan law GAR? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)