User talk:Geometry guy/Archive 25

Your help would be appreciated with Catholic Church GAR

Hi G-guy,

The Catholic Church article (groan) is undergoing a GAR. It seems to be initiated as an individual GAR - perhaps by accident - but given the circumstances of the article it is probably cleaner to run it as a community GAR. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated on this. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look and will comment there this evening UTC. In the meanwhile, editors are free to consult the GAR guidelines, which have not changed significantly since summer 2008. Note, though, that these are guidelines, not rules, so common sense should be applied: it is not possible to legislate for all possible circumstances at GA! Geometry guy 08:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Per my comments in the talk page, I think it's fine if you go ahead and delist on your own.UberCryxic ^(talk) 21:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome, but I won't do that. As I expected with such a controversial article, a fairly high standard of uninvolvement is required. I hope you have learned something about GA reassessment already from this experience so far! Geometry guy 22:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As always, thanks for the sage advice. Majoreditor (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tea, and a request...

Could I ask a favour? Could you look at [1] and the logs of this article with the following question in mind?: if you were to conduct an individual GA reassessment of this article, would it fail stability criterion 5? Many thanks if you can help; no worries if you can't. Geometry guy 21:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The topic is one which is likely to attract vandal attention, so I would expect it reasonably to have some history of vandalism and to be semi-protected (but it's not). As it is also a potential POV topic, I would expect some strong debate on the talkpage about different POV and would hope to see it moving toward NPOV. That is happening, and it can be an uncomfortable and bumpy ride, but it's a positive sign. Unfortunately there is some impatience, and the debate has carried over into the article. That isn't good, as it makes the article unstable. A reader is unsure which version is acceptable. The article is currently unstable and would not meet GA stability criteria. I would delist it until a neutral and stable working version can be agreed, at which point it can be submitted for another GA review. Going through a GA review process generally tightens and improves an article, so that is a good thing - regardless of if the article gets listed at the end or not.

I haven't read the whole thing, but a glance at the lead left me uncomfortable. Delisting and going through another GA review would be a genuine benefit. Leaving the article listed as it is would be unlikely to be of benefit to anyone. SilkTork *^YES! 00:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If I may be brutally frank, that's complete nonsense. GA's strength and weakness is that it's down to one reviewer to make the choice, but this is far too big a topic to put back into the regular GAN queue and expect any reviewer to pick up. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

We all know RCC has been a hot potato for ages. I agree with Malleus; I don't think GA/GAR is equipped, as a process, to handle it. If it was a huge nightmare for FAC, where multiple editors contribute and standards are higher, it really can't be done at GAR. I suggest KEEP GA as per WP:IAR; work out differences on Talk. If you don't KEEP, it will start an unending cycle of GANs and GARs. That is not in the best interest of the article or the readers.• Ling.Nut 02:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep as GA an article with POV tags and endless edit warring? What does that say to our readers (or our editors)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggested reverting to a stable version. Quite frankly, the processes themselves can be used as tools by POV warriors. If we follow rules blindly, POV warriors will take advantage of the process to continually degrade both the article's quality and ranking. This article is among the best arguments I have ever seen for both flagged revisions and for WP:IAR as a guiding philosophy. • Ling.Nut 02:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There's never been a stable version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There are better ones and worse ones. Again speaking frankly, Wikipedia's quote-unquote WP:CONSENSUS-driven model is completely incapable of handling this article, and that's doubly true for the GA process. It cannot be done if POV warriors have an equal seat at the table — as they do. This article needs the steady hand(s) of a small number of editors. WP:IAR and only WP:IAR is the only hope of avoiding slow, tortured slide into gibberish. • Ling.Nut 03:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

GA can't handle this article, you're quite right. That doesn't necessarily mean though that it ought to be delisted. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As Ling.Nut says, "It cannot be done if POV warriors have an equal seat at the table". It's possible to beating the POV warriors, but this would required the "good guys" to spent at least as much time as the POV warriors. I suggest the first step is to devalue the POV warriors' prize - delist the article down to Start-class and add "disputed" and other tags where appropriate. This would be ugly but cheap, as it would reduce the POV warriors' advantage in time spent. Then it may be possible to beating the POV warriors with a sharp campaign using all the content and conduct policies. --Philcha (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Down is far easier than up. If we follow Philcha's advice, up will never happen. Be realistic, please. • Ling.Nut 05:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case, the top priority should being tell readers that the article is unreliable. --Philcha (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No. The top priority is always and everywhere presenting the reader with the best available version of an article. We at Wikipedia over-value the more recent results of our cumulative mode of editing. We assume that we should start from what we see, and work up from there. That's usually true, but not always. Sometimes one needs to scrap the pestiferous editing of the uninformed, ill-advised or obnoxious. That is, we need to take a reader-centered approach rather than an editor-centered one. In short, revert to an earlier version and protect. • Ling.Nut 07:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is OK if there is a NPOV version and an admin protects that version - and the latter means you have to win a revert war first. --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Commenting per request: Although productive revision and unproductive dispute are poles apart in terms of motivation, I think the outcome can be similar from a GA reassessment perspective. By this I mean that in both cases the resulting article content may no longer resemble that which was originally assessed as meeting the GA criteria. Comparing the assessed version with the current version, there is clearly little similarity between the two, so I think immediately delisting the article under criterion 5 is perfectly reasonable. Rolling the article back to a 'stable' version would, I think, be highly problematic: due to the amount of work that's gone into the article since its GA review, unless it's turned back two years the article would probably need to be reassessed anyway; many good edits would be lost along with the not so good; I suspect deciding which version to roll back to would be very contentious; and only the most foolhardy admin would dive into such a contentious article, adjudicate its content, and then apply protection against policy (desysoppings have quite rightly occurred for less). Perhaps the current GAR could be handled as a full re-review, but looking at the other issues that have been raised by reviewers, the amount of work that needs to be done, and the ever-present spectre of another dispute breaking out (and article protection putting the brakes on progress), I wonder if that alternative is just prolonging the agony? EyeSerene^talk 10:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• The point is, you aren't thinking outside the box. You're coloring inside the lines, from a Wikipedia point of view, and in this particular case coloring inside the lines can only result in slow death to the article itself – which is a huge disservice to the reader(s). If you take as a starting point, "We should follow Wikipedia's guidelines, rules, policies etc. when dealing with this", then the outcome is inevitable:

1. Lots of blah blah blah.
2. Delist.
3. Lots of well-intentioned blah blah blah. Promises. Empty promises.
4. Entropy entropy entropy.
5. Shit on the Internet: we no longer make the Internet not suck, because we ourselves suck, and hellah loudly, at that.
6. More blah blah blah. Some of it noble and well-intentioned.
7. Heat death of the Universe, or melting polar caps, whichever comes first, but the article is still shit, assuming the Internet still exists.

• • Ling.Nut 11:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Having visited talk pages of several involved editors as well as of the article itself, I am more optimistic about the current prospects for constructive progress. Geometry guy 11:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to EyeSerene and SilkTork for volunteering their view, and to all for comments. I asked for comments because of this thread on the Catholic Church talk page.

Articles like this present a considerable challenge to the encyclopedia in general, the GA process in particular, and all editors who are trying to help improve them. I agree they present a good case for flagged revisions, but a deep revert and protect is unrealistic. There is just too much disagreement and pressure for change re the article. I realize a GA renomination would be very challenging, and would need the kind of special attention of experienced reviewers that have gathered here. But the bottom line is that if the article does not meet the GA criteria, it should not be listed as a GA.

As indicated on the Catholic Church talk page, I hope that either SilkTork or EyeSerene would be willing to conduct an individual GAR on the basis I have suggested. This could be done by moving (with their consent!) the individual GAR started by Mike Searson and UberCryxic to Talk:Catholic Church/GA1/archive - as I did similarly to great critical acclaim recently :-) - and leaving a fresh review (by uninvolved reviewer) in its place.

If this is not possible, then it seems to me that the only way to proceed is via community GAR. In that case I hope that either EyeSerene or SilkTork would be willing to moderate and close it. Geometry guy 11:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• I won't be there. I'm quite sensitive. I cried when Bambi's mother died – heck, I cry when I hear The Little Drummer Boy on the radio. I can't stand to see things suffer and slowly die. I also dislike empty promises (sorry to put such a fine point on it, but there it is). So good night, and good luck. • Ling.Nut 11:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm unusually busy on Wikipedia at the moment and I'll be on a week-long wikibreak over the UK Easter bank holiday, but if it would help I'm certainly willing to contribute what I can. In fact, I don't see why we couldn't conduct the GAR between us (perhaps with SilkTork, if he's amenable, taking the lead?). EyeSerene^talk 13:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Geez, Louise ! At the rate work is progressing over there, maybe the GA problem will solve itself! Everyone is working their little tails off over there, and there's no more talk page acrimony! Perhaps GA reviewers could "stall" to see if progress holds once the blocks expire. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There are no editing blocks that I can see, only a move block. SilkTork *^YES! 17:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandy is referring to the user blocks of Xandar (talk · contribs) and NancyHeise (talk · contribs), who are two of the main contributors to the article. Geometry guy 17:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Catholic_Church#New_GAR

I have proposed that the current GAR is closed and that EyeSerene and I open a new GAR. SilkTork *^YES! 17:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(Note also reply above.) Excellent approach and summary. I've also seen that progress is being made, in particular on the size of the article, which has been trimmed from nearly 200KB to under 120KB, and now downloads (over my internet connection) in 25 seconds rather than 40! Geometry guy 17:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Demi's Birthday Suit/GA2

Thanks for your comments, I have revisited and placed on hold, also reassessed Burger King and placed on hold. Do you want to take a look at WP:GAR#Dancing the Dream, I think it is ready to go. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Three for the price of one! I should query your reviews more often :) Many thanks again!

I've checked out Dancing the Dream, and am not convinced that it is GA standard; I've given my reasons there. Now for the other one... Geometry guy 14:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Philip the Arab and Christianity

Thanks again for the commentary. I believe I've addressed your concerns with the opening (now the second) section; maybe you could help me sort out the odds and ends. I'm not so sure how to proceed with the rest of the article, where I can't see the same jumps from theme to theme. I would appreciate further review. G.W. (Talk) 18:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I will make some general and personal remarks here (if I may), and comment more specifically at the peer review if you would find that helpful. Community GAR is rarely able to provide a hold period for article improvement, as reviewers are simply too busy to provide an in-depth re-review. The likely outcome, unless someone provides such a review, is that the GAR will be closed without listing the article, leaving you free to renominate it (hopefully after getting good feedback from the peer review and elsewhere).

I imagine you have been surprised by critical comments on your prose, and found it difficult to respond when reviewers have described it as "grammatically correct, but unencyclopedic". I may be able to clarify. From what I have read, within and without the article, you seem to me to be a highly educated person who uses language with great care and appreciates good writing. (This is a compliment; I am an academic myself.) Such sensitivity to language is necessary to be able to write the "brilliant prose" that editors like Awadewit treat us to, and featured articles aspire to. But it is not sufficient. You also have to adapt your prose to the encyclopedic context and be quite ruthless in self-censure. You may be aware that User:Tony1 has some well regarded guides, such as User:Tony1/How_to_improve_your_writing.

One of the themes here is Strunk and White's maxim "Omit needless words". (Or in the extended version, "Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.") This quality of encyclopedic prose is particularly valued here.

The article is at present too long, and I think that is partly because of the prose style. The three sentences needed to establish that Greek was the likely lingua franca are one example. For another, consider "In the first days of his reign, Philip brought an effective end to his predecessor's wasteful war against Persia. Philip's reign thus gave the empire respite from the otherwise turbulent years of the mid-third century.[37] The Christians did not experience persecution under the emperor; neither had they seen any under his predecessor, Gordian." Can you convey the most relevant information with fewer words?

I hope you will receive my commentary in the helpful spirit in which I intended it. Geometry guy 20:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I do receive your commentary gratefully. Thank you for the compliments; it warms my heart to give and receive them. I am not particularly well-educated. (I only have a high school-level education.) I appreciate that there are flaws in my writing, but I am as often as not blind to them until I am directed to them; this is why I enjoy the outside perspectives that content review provides. I do not treat them as simple pass/fail checklists, but as areas for commentary and improvement in consultation with editors of equal standing. I was not surprised by critical comments on my prose. I have received them here before and in real life. What surprised me was that my reviewers did not make themselves clear, did not tie their concerns to the text, and gave me no means of correcting the article. This is why the reviews I received from Wandalstouring and Jezhotwells felt inadequate to me; I did not understand their concerns, and though I made efforts to engage them, they made no attempt to explain themselves. This must be a function of the high workloads that self-selected reviewers take on themselves. I am sympathetic to their position, but this review style frustrates me. I accept that it looks as though this may fail (even though I've got expressions of support from everyone except hamiltonstone and Jezhotwells?), but I am still dissatisfied with the review I received.

I feel the extended writing is as much a product of the uncertainty I see in the writing as of my own tendency to overwrite. Language and ethnicity are matters of heated contention at the best of times. I will look to cut this or move it into the notes, as support for a "Greek was probably the language of the urban world and elite society." I will check over the text again for spaces I can trim.

I would very much appreciate specific commentary at the peer review. Thank you for your help. G.W. (Talk) 20:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have been happy with that review either, but it's water under the bridge now. When you've done as much research as you obviously have into a topic it's a great temptation to try and cram it all in, and I'm probably as guilty of that as anyone. They key thing though I think (or at least one of them) is to bear in mind that you're trying to provide the reader with an engaging and comprehensive overview of a topic that they can do further research on themselves if they want to by consulting the sources you've pointed them towards. You might find using the Notes/Footnotes that lots of FAs use to be a handy way of keeping material in the article that you think is important without breaking up the flow, or making the narrative too lengthy. Take a look at how that's done in Gunpowder Plot, for instance, if you're not sure what I'm talking about. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Granted. I often come back on my articles in later months, following up comments in content review, and find myself shocked at the content I've left in. I've removed marginal content to notes in Diocletianic Persecution. I'll see what I can do here. G.W. (Talk) 01:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for your reply, G.W. I understand your frustration with the reviews, and I may comment on difficulties at the GAR (e.g. if I close it).

There are many forms of education; schooling is but one. May I suggest instead "well-read"?

I will do my best to contribute to the peer review. Meanwhile, I will comment briefly on "The Christians did not experience persecution under the emperor; neither had they seen any under his predecessor, Gordian." Here you seem to be choosing nice turns of phrase to avoid repetition. This doesn't work well in an encyclopedia, especially one where many readers are not fluent English speakers. The phrases "did not experience" and "neither had they seen" are not only wordy, but ambiguous. The first is open to the interpretation that Christians were persecuted, but were in denial, or used meditation and/or drugs to avoid experiencing it! The second is open to the interpretation that persecution took place in secret. Unlikely interpretations I admit, but direct, vigorous writing avoids such distractions! Geometry guy 21:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(Well, I'm not especially well-educated because I'm still a teenager. Thank you for the compliments, though!)

The sentence is now "The Christians were not persecuted under Philip or his predecessor, Gordian". I've removed the previous sentence entire (the information is in the bio now). G.W. (Talk) 01:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I knew far more when I was a teenager than I do now. At least I thought I did. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A sincere thank you from Wikiproject Good Articles

On behalf of Wikiproject Good Articles, I would like to express our gratitude to you for your contributions to the Sweeps process, for which you completed 12 reviews. Completion of this monstrous task has proven to be a significant accomplishment not only for our project, but for Wikipedia. As a token of our sincere appreciation, please accept this ribbon. Lara 14:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the ribbon and for thanking everyone involved. My contribution was tiny compared to others. Geometry guy 15:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your very kind works and all your help with Quehanna (formal thank spam to follow) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanks, but please, no thank spam! Or at least be willing to forgive me if I remove it... :) Geometry guy 00:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

	<font=3> Thanks again for your kind words, detailed review, and support. Quehanna Wild Area is now a featured article! Auntieruth55 (talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Geometry guy, if you get a chance could you weigh in on the April 1 DYK or not question at Talk:Quehanna Wild Area? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I did, and have also done most of the PR updating for next month. By the way, your thank spam was so appealing and personally addressed, that I would not wish to remove it before nominal archiving of this page. Thank you, Geometry guy 23:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment requested

Hi Geometry guy! Your input would be most helpful in a recent thread at Talk:Connection (vector bundle). Best, Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Todd Manning article finally undergoing another GA review

Hey, Geometry guy. You said that you would be willing to help me copyedit this article once up for GA review again. Well, I definitely need your help...considering the concerns of the GA reviewer. I only have seven days to get this article in full GA condition. If I list it at the new copyeditors league, I am afraid it won't get the attention it needs soon enough...even if I leave a note about the urgency. So I am asking you to help me with what you can. Flyer22 (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It passed with just my improvements. I could still use your copyediting skills with it, but I understand if you are busier with other stuff. Thanks anyway, Geometry guy. Flyer22 (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there a mathematician ...

Hi, G'guy, do you know who could say whether Emanuel Lasker was a good or a great mathematician. --Philcha (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Darn it

Again, I can't locate that template you designed for me when an article appears at FAC that should be re-evaluated for GA. If you give it to me again, this time, I'll park it on my user page! Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dubai/archive1 needs GA reassessment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I found it ... is it {{GA request}}? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the one - sorry for the slow response - it is worth using as other editors besides me do take up GA requests these days. Geometry guy 08:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Input at a GA discussion

Hi there - as the 'elder statesman' of the GA pages, I hope you will put in your two bob at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles#Should_GA_and_A-class_articles_be_recognisable_through_a_symbol_on_the_article_page.3F. I'm intending to tag it for centralised discussion in the next day or so - any advice prior to doing that would be greatefully received, as i've never initiated such a discussion before. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look this evening (UTC). My initial thoughts are that if you want to turn this initial discussion into something community-wide, it would be best to start the latter afresh as an RfC in a neutral place, concentrating only on the GA symbol, not A-Class, which is quite a different matter. Geometry guy 17:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have now commented. Thanks for alerting me to this, as I have been really busy recently. Geometry guy 19:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Coordinate system

I've been making extensive edits to the Coordinate system article and I thought you might want to review the progress so far since you added a cleanup tag a few years ago. I'd like to get the article into the state where all the cleanup and merge tags (some of which I added myself) can be removed and the it earns the C rating it currently has. Right now I'd say that the article is one half to two thirds of the way there. This article is rated Top priority and gets about a thousand hits per day, so it's shame that these cleanup issues have remained unresolved for so long.--RDBury (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this under you wing - I agree with you that such a fundamental article should not have languished for so long in need of clean-up. You have made tremendous progress already - it is starting to look more like an article than a list already. I will chip in as and when time permits. Geometry guy 19:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Peer review full?

Hi Geometry guy, Veblenbot keeps giving notices the PR is getting full - I have done the partial tranclusion trick on all PRs larger than 10 kB, but this seems not to have worked. Could you please check and make sure there is not some new issue (or that I have not screwed up)? I will also ask CBM. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I had a quick look: this illustrates the source of the extra text on the PR page (Everyday life section). Geometry guy 13:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The underlying problem was this category [2]. I found that by (1) noticing that WP:PR was in the "Everyday life peer reviews" category and (2) looking at the most recent PR in that section. After I removed it, I went to Category:Everyday life peer reviews and did null edits to remove the category from the two pages it was not supposed to be on. Then the next VeblenBot update was correct. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much - I appreciate all the help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Good save

Good save there on the user rights :) By the time I got to my own UserRights it had mysteriously changed back... Heh. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that! If you know any regular, established or long term contributors who don't have the reviewer flag, please set it, as the trial of "pending changes" starts tomorrow. Geometry guy 21:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah,I've been helping out with the help pages. If that makes sense. I think it'll go live on Tuesday...? The devs are only (!) putting the tech in place tomorrow, I believe (but it does keep changing). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 22:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It does. OK, well soon anyway! Geometry guy 22:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am Autoreviewer.

Hi Geometry guy, I noticed this: "15:42 . . Geometry guy (talk | contribs) changed rights for User:Keraunoscopia from (none) to Autoreviewers and Reviewers (WP contributor)" — and I see from a discussion above that something's taking place, but I'm pretty ignorant of what User Rights is, or what an Autoreviewer is as well. What is all this? And thanks for doing it, whatever it is lol. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a trial taking place of a new feature to ensure that on some articles, only an approved (non-vandalized) version is presented to the public. The "Reviewer" flag simply allows editors to ensure that their edits, and edits they review are presented to the public (non logged in users). It is something that all established editors should be able to do. Geometry guy 22:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

See also WP:Reviewing for more information. Geometry guy 22:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks for the links and the rights changes. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi User:Geometry guy, I also saw from my watchlist that I had been granted, by you, the same rights. Having read the thread above, I now know why; but I'm not sure what I can do with this new "power" or "tool". I will go and "play" with it. I can add my thanks to that of User:Keraunoscopia. Pyrotec (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing Good Articles

Hi Geometry guy,

I've been thinking about our discussion last August at WT:RGA about the problem of made-up requirements for GA and the need for a "sticking strictly to the criteria" page. I've barely started on a possible approach to it at User:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox. I'd be happy to have your comments and help. (Feel free to boldly improve!) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing! Thanks for stopping by. I like your idea very much, and what you have done so far. Something like this would be a useful supplement to WP:RGA, and a "see also" essay for WP:WIAGA. It is on my watchlist, and I will contribute further to the detail as it develops. Geometry guy 19:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else to include. Are there any other obvious or common mistakes to identify? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If I may butt in, I think that's an excellent antidote to the increasing trend for the "my way or the highway" approach to reviewing. Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is looking good. I suggest sticking to the more structure format you use for 1 and 2 ("Mistakes to avoid" is good). I would trim it a bit, especially criterion 3, which goes into unnecessary detail :) Geometry guy 09:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Stalker comment: looks good to me too. The only comments I have relate to 1.6. "Probably illustrated" is a slightly odd title (initially I wondered if it was a typo - "Properly illustrated"). I also wonder if it might be worth noting that for subjects where images should be readily available or those about an image (such as an article discussing a painting) the "if possible" proviso may actually be quite strong. EyeSerene^talk 10:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your comments. I've re-worked a bit and added a first draft for an introduction, and addressed the issue of notability.

Eye, I'm not sure what to do about the "Illustrated" heading. Illustrations are not actually required, and I don't want to imply that they are. I've tried to change the text to be firmer about the appropriateness of including images IFF they're readily available.

BTW, if any of you have specific ideas, feel free to edit the draft directly; I'm not particularly territorial.

Does anyone have any suggestions for a page name? I've been thinking about something like "Limits of the Good Article criteria". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A wikipedia-esque title could be "What the Good article criteria are not". :) Geometry guy 20:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant that I initially thought you meant to write "Properly illustrated" and made a typo. I agree with you that "Properly illustrated" would give the wrong impression :) EyeSerene^talk 11:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not has been created; I'd be happy if several people would watchlist it. I've also updated the link above so that it will point to the last draft in my sandbox. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Late to the party, but I'm watchlisting it. Great work guys, and quite a relief as I contemplate whittling down the SHIPS backlog. - Dank (push to talk) 17:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

another possible FA drive

• Grigori Perelman, who has been in the news lately for turning down a million dollar award for solving the Poincare Conjecture. • Ling.Nut 09:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks for the idea Ling, but I prefer to leave controversial BLPs to other editors and wish them luck. Geometry guy 20:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia size chart

Hey, I noticed that you created File:WPsize.png. Any chance you could update it with the latest statistics? Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk · scripts) 19:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I could do, but File:EnwikipediaArt.PNG is regularly maintained and better quality than my poor effort. Geometry guy 20:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah that looks pretty good, thanks. Gary King (talk · scripts) 00:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Logarithm

Up for some maths? I'm currently on logarithm. It is slowly beginning to take shape, but I could certainly use a hand or two in balancing out the material etc. See you there, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A lot of work is needed on presentation, comprehensibility and encyclopedic style. I'd be glad to help when I can, especially at the GA stage, and with copyediting and minor fixes if you take it further. Geometry guy 20:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

small changes == big changes

G-guy,

Sorry I undid your change. I was being insistently called away, didn't have time to check carefully, and some of your small changes were really very large changes. One example: The Egyptian troops weren't sent to replace UNEF. They did replace UNEF, but that was only a small part of it. The Egyptian force was several times larger and was deployed in several different areas. I can discuss other areas of concern if you like. Thanks.. actually, your first comment was a huge help! Thanks... • Ling.Nut 01:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I was somewhat baffled, as this is a sandbox, so what is the urgency? I never claimed my proposed changes were small, as the second paragraph needs substantial reduction in detail. I may have introduced inaccuracies, but even with an active article it is generally preferable to build on and correct the edits of others rather than revert (thus undoing copyedits and reintroducing typos).

The problem may be writing a lead before getting the article right: the detail you restored certainly belongs in the article; it just doesn't belong in the lead. That is my advice. Cheers, Geometry guy 09:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh! The crucial piece of info you're missing is this: the whole reason I got involved in the first place was because of chronic edit warring over the lead (and really, only the lead). That's also the reason why we're doing the lead now instead of later... If any pieces of info are deleted in a way that seems to shift the POV balance perceptibly in either direction, edit warring ensues. Several eyes are on my sandbox (or so I think)... Sorry if I didn't explain that! • Ling.Nut 09:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fine as a temporary means to an end, but in the long run, edit warring is a conduct issue, not a content issue, and the lead should satisfy the needs of readers, not editors, as I'm sure you agree. I'll comment further on sandbox talk :) Geometry guy 20:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

But the prob is, the shortened lead all too often leaves editors with legitimate gripes. The lead should not make or imply points that are refuted in body text; nor omit major points that are later elaborated. see more on sandbox talk. • Ling.Nut 00:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for setting up the GAR for Warcraft II

I made some slip ups in setting up the GAR for Warcraft II. Many thanks for setting it right, G-guy. --Philcha (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No probs - glad to help. Geometry guy 22:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Oren, p. 72

G-guy, I am being rude and imposing upon you again. Darned lack of social competence! But if you think you have time, please see this request. In particular, does Oren say that U Thant repeated the request for Israel to accept UNEF troops inside its borders? How much space does Oren devote to the topic, and what does he say? In the second book, the whole story of Jordanian soldiers in the Government house has become a hot-button issue of sorts. • Ling.Nut 00:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The book is in my university library. I will check it tomorrow if the request is still hot. Geometry guy 21:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr. pda posted the .pdf file of Oren on the request page... thanks!• Ling.Nut 01:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Commander

Thank you for the copy edits. Its something I need to improve on. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 19:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort to make great articles, and I view the GA process as one of many mechanisms to encourage that end. If you feel that you lack the expertise to copy-edit, then engage other editors to help, e.g., through talk pages and peer review. When you do so, *do not ever* neglect the value of your own input. If you know the sources better than other editors, stand your ground and explain why their changes do not reflect the source material, but be willing to compromise. The best articles are not typically those where a single editor can say "this was my achievement", but are instead a result of many editors with complementary skills realizing the best encyclopedic expression of current human knowledge. Geometry guy 22:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you for the wisdom. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 03:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Geometry guy 23:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that there are very few of us, perhaps even none of us, who can write those "great" articles. I certainly always feel more comfortable with a trusted collaborator or three anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Six days

		The Original Barnstar
		For an excellent comment in the midst of heated debate on Six-Day War and reminding people what the project is all about. Thank you. WGFinley (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to comment from the perspective of what a curious reader may want from the article. I hope it helps. Geometry guy 23:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Master of Orion II

Please have a look at the bottom of Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares/1. --Philcha (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. "The game had a GAR and passed, by Teancum" is inaccurate: Teancum opened a community GAR, and improvements to the article satisfied his/her concerns; that does not mean the article passed GAR, because it was not an individual reassessment. Your suggestion to improve the article using a 1996 review and 2000 (retro)review are good. Articles can be renominated at any time, so you do not need to rush. Geometry guy 00:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have copy this conversation, and will continue it at User talk:Philcha#top. --Philcha (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

email

Thou hast. Question for work. Thanks. • Ling.Nut 07:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks !

... for the GAR; I'll catch up with you soon, I hope! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No probs. Thanks for your selective care in drawing attention to articles that really do need reassessment. This one needs some improving and I hope GA reassessment will help such improvement to take place (during and/or after the review). Geometry guy 22:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer review of Watts Up With That?

I have listed Watts Up With That? for peer review. The article was nominated for GAR in July but has been unstable since then. You did a thorough review on the global warming disaster article, and if you would like to take a look at this article, it needs a thorough peer review before it is ready for GAR. I just listed it, so I don't think it shows up yet on the peer review list. Thanks. Minor4th 00:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit slow. I have watchlisted the article and the peer review. I may be able to help with comments that go beyond the grammar, without (I hope) taking a position on any controversy. Geometry guy 21:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Autogynephilia, Homosexual transsexual, and BBL

Merger proposal

You are receiving this because you have commented on either Autogynephilia, Homosexual transsexual, or Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory in the past two years; all such commenters have received this notice. It has been proposed to merge these three articles to eliminate WP:Redundancy, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, and to keep the focus on the specific Blanchardian theory of M2F transsexuality (in contrast to Transsexual sexuality, which would be to focus on the subject in general). Please feel free to comment on the proposal at Talk:Autogynephilia#Merger proposal. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

On the proposed merger

The actively interested editors of the pages on Autogynephilia, homosexual transsexual, and BBL theory have been discussing a merger. You are an editor that was deeply interested and involved in the past. straw Poll on the merger proposals. I am notifying you of this poll as a courtesy. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

GAR

Hey, it appears that immediately after Hell Comes to Quahog was delisted as a good article, User:GageSkidmore renominated it for good article. It appears that he has not attempted to make any of the suggested improvements, and instead if trying to bypass the GAR. User:Bignole brought this up on the article talk page a while ago and suggested GageSkidmore denominate, but was instead ignored. I'm don't have much experience in GAR's, so I thought you would be best to contact about this. Thanks. Ωphois 21:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know (although I have been keeping an eye on this anyway). Gage is entitled to renominate the article, but without substantial change since the GAR, a GAN reviewer should take into account the GAR comments before deciding whether to list or fail the nomination: overturning a community GAR at GAN would almost certainly lead to another community GAR if the article had not been improved. Gaming GA processes doesn't work in the long run, and Gage seems to me to be intelligent enough to realise this. Geometry guy 22:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

GA request

Talk:Russia/GA1 just came to my attention via FAC-- ugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Thus far User:Jezhotwells and I have both been responding to {{GA request}}s. I hope other editors will also do so. The list can be found at WP:GAR#Articles_needing_review_and_possible_reassessment (yours will appear there in about half an hour) or at Category:Good articles in need of review. Geometry guy 19:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

In this case, there seems to be some ownership going on, so a firm knowledgeable voice may be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Why does WIAGA say:

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[2] and

but leave out WP:MEDRS, which is far better written and has broader consensus? This goes back to the problem of many medical GAs using primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

We discussed this before. I would prefer the science citation guidelines to be a footnote. They generally limit the citation requirements. Inline citations are not the only way to address unsourced material. All articles should be adequately sourced, and if primary sources are misused, that is a sourcing issue, not a citation issue. Geometry guy 23:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. (I think :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm impressed as ever by the speed of your thought processes. :) Geometry guy 23:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should slow them down :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, you are just perfect for the encyclopedia as you are. The debt Wikipedia owes to you for your dedication to improving the encyclopedia is something I can barely begin to describe. The way you reach out to other editors to encourage them to support the common ethos of Wikipedia is admirable. You focus attention on content, with improving articles the main goal, and call a spade a spade when you see it. You accept the praise economy as a means to an end, and you understand the importance of community in improving the encyclopedia. There is so much to do, and I hope you never slow down. I don't give out barnstars, so I'm afraid you'll have to put up with these few meagre words as the nearest equivalent. Never forget how much you are valued by so many editors. Geometry guy 23:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You are too kind :) (All the same can be said of you!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• If your mutual admiration society gets any cozier, I'm gonna start charging admission. ;-) [Although to be uncharacteristically serious, I do in fact agree with what both of you said]. • Ling.Nut 07:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  Why do you get to charge admission? If you do, I want $12.63. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  There is a 40% tax on all charges made on my user talk page ;) Geometry guy 22:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. US school is in session again! I added four new GA requests from FAC today, but as pennance, I removed Talk:Dictator novel-- could you have a look at what I did there to make sure it's up to snuff? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

And semester is about to start here so I won't have much time for GA requests. Once more unto the breach, Jezhotwells, I hope!

I checked out Dictator novel: perfect though we both are, we are different :). You are bolder than I and I would not have reverted to a previous version to fix a GA problem. It seems like a reasonable solution here, though, in that it effectively undoes the work of just one editor, who did most of the damage unilaterally, albeit with good intentions. I've restored some minor information that was lost in the revert. Geometry guy 22:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

One blocked user did all the damage-- made sense-- but I should have picked up the little things you corrected! Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

GAR advice

Hi there, I was wondering if you could give me some GAR-related advice as I know you're active (and helpful) in that area. I recently started a community GAR at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Anne Marie Louise d'Orléans, Duchess of Montpensier/1. It's been open for about 10 days now and there are still outstanding issues. After an initial spurt of improvements by me and a couple of other editors, things have stagnated because someone with access to the relevant sources is needed. Anyway, given that there are outstanding problems, and nobody is now arguing to keep the article listed, is it ok to close the reassessment as "delist"? Also, is it ok for me to close it, since I was the one who started the nomination? Would appreciate your opinion. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 13:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Best not to close a nomination that you started, as you can hardly be considered a disinterested party. Ten days isn't very long anyway, and there's no rush. Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I watchlist all community GARs and encourage other editors interested in maintaining a consistent GA standard to do likewise (community GARs are tracked by User:VeblenBot/C/GAR). Any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article can in principle close a community GAR according to consensus and the GA criteria. However, I agree with Malleus that if you nominated the article for community rather than individual reassessment, it suggests that another editor should make the consensus call. I'm willing to do so in the next day or two if noone else does before me. Geometry guy 22:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to watchlist this, sorry. Thanks to both for the reply, that's what I thought, but I'd been asked by a couple of editors if it was going to close soon, and wasn't quite sure, what with there being no official GAR delegate-type person. I don't see anything about who should or shouldn't close a community GAR in the instructions. Do you think it would be worth adding something, or do you think that would be unnecessary instruction creep? I've not been involved in too many GARs, but I've already reverted two early closures by people who were far from disinterested and were trying (either intentionally or due to misunderstanding) to go against consensus. --BelovedFreak 17:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That article was something of a dog's breakfast! Anyway, after a painful read, I closed the reassessment as delist. I also updated the GAR guidelines to mention involvement: I doubt many editors read them anyway, so an additional footnote is at worst harmless! The best guidelines reflect and describe community practice rather than dictate it.

Thanks for your reversions in those early closure cases, by the way. You make excellent contributions to GAR, and I hope you will continue to do so with growing confidence. GA really needs reliable and conscientious editors like you. Geometry guy 22:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah thanks, that's very kind! :) I will keep working at GAR as I think it's an important area for quality control and, sadly like many areas on Wikipedia, lacking in participation. Thanks for closing that one. And as for the instructions, I suspect you're right that many don't read them, but at least I can point people to them in the future! Cheers, --BelovedFreak 09:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The honor you bestowed upon me

Thanks -- I appreciate the commendation and the nice words, and your own politeness and thoughtfulness in our discussion. I hope we can continue to work positively together. Propaniac (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

requiescat

Oi, is it true User:Minestrone Soup passed away? I didn't see that. • Ling.Nut 02:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

oops, no, it was his dad. • Ling.Nut 02:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Good article stuff

Hi, after seeing your work on the real global warming disaster article i was wondering if it would be possible to enlist your aid on this article Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History I am currently expanding it and would appreciate feedback on my progress so far. I would really like to get this article up to GA status, thanks mark nutley (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it. My feedback on your expansion so far would be: keep going. It may also be helpful to distinguish between references to the book (the primary source) from references to secondary sources. Many editors do not do this, which I think is a pity, as there are lots of ways to do so. The lead currently needs work, but don't worry about that until the content of the body of the article is settled. Geometry guy 00:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, how do i separate the refs? Is one called notes and gets another reflist kinda thing? mark nutley (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Improper rights change?

Hey, I'm cymru.lass. A while ago (13 June, to be exact), you changed my rights to reviewers after I requested the reviewer right so as to participate in the pending changes trial. I just noticed that you also gave me the autopatrolled right. Thank you for that, but I think you might have been mistaken. I've created 46 mainspace pages, but if you take out all the redirects, I've only created one. I'm not really much of a content-creator; I'm actually quite the gnome. If I do create other articles (highly unlikely but still), they should probably go through new pages patrol. Is there any way you could remove the autopatrolled right from my account? Leave in the reviewer right, though, adding the reviewer right wasn't a mistake Thanks! --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 02:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Experienced editors can be trusted to create new pages with care. New pages patrol is a defense against vandalism and irresponsible editing. The very fact that you have posted here demonstrates what a responsible editor you are. Happy editing. Geometry guy 08:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Okie doke. Thanks! --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 22:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Busta Rhymes

The IP user had been adding the nomination since many time before. It has been quick failed per obvious issues of the article. If you check at the IP contributions, he added the nomination first, after the bot removed the nomination the "current" user you insist to post added it, later yo'll find something interesting. why this is helpful information rather than further obfuscation of the situation I do not have to gave you explanations of why I do something, this is helpful and the IP user requested it before that the logged user, feel free crediting both users instead of removing the IP user. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 04:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation and the links to the additional IP edits. You do not have to give any explanations of your actions, but the more clearly you explain them, the more you facilitate communication with other editors, potentially saving them work. In this case more than one of your actions *did* contribute to reviewer confusion and cause extra work. Edit summaries are an excellent way to convey both understandings and misunderstandings. For example if I had not left a detailed edit summary concerning my (mis)understanding, we might have gotten into an edit war instead of a conversation! Anyway, it seems the nom has been failed, so the matter is resolved. Geometry guy 08:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)