User talk:Geometry guy/Archive 26

Weirdness making list peer reviews into redirects

Hi Geometry guy, there is something weird is going on with peer reviewes for lists. Wikipedia:Peer review/List of extreme weather records in Pakistan/archive4 was set up as a redirect to Template:Peer review/preload10, and Wikipedia:Peer review/List of defunct colleges and universities in Kansas/archive1 was a redirect to Template:Peer review/preload11. I fixed both PRs and left preload10 alone for those more knowledgable than I to look at. I deleted preload11 as it was the one I found first, via the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Setting_up_for_peer_review-help. I will also ask CBM for help with this problem. Thanks in advance for any assistance, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carl has found and fixed the problem already, so no need to worry. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that. It was an amusing bug (for those unaffected): moving preload10 without updating {{Peer review}} to match resulted in the preload preloading a redirect! However, Carl did not restore preload10, which I've now done (preload11, in contrast, is not needed for anything). I am also cleaning up the mess caused by this bug and straightening out the edit histories. Geometry guy 14:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning that up. I just did a minimal fix to diagnose the source of the problem. One thing to beware of: the underscores in the PR template are actually necessary; without them the space in the URL causes problems when the wiki generates the links to create the PR archive page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All done, I think, apart from deleting Wikipedia:Peer review/List of extreme weather records in Pakistan/archive4, but I'll wait until the next VeblenBot update to do that. It was a good exercise in splitting edit histories - they don't call it "the mop" for nothing! Geometry guy 15:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much - I appreciate all your help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geometry guy, I am not sure what was going one with this PR, but it was started in early September and never listed at WP:PR until I fixed it earlier today. Wikipedia:Peer review/Maya (M.I.A. album)/archive2 - I assume it was related to the problem edits on the PR template(s), but thought you might be able to figure out the problem. Thanks as always for your help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Childishness

Don't be so bloody rude. [1] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for paying attention, the first step in politeness. Geometry guy 02:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dance with me?

Dear G-guy,

Jakob.scholbach has invited me to a dance at Logarithm, and I was wondering if you'd like to escort me thither? :) He's aiming to bring it to GAN by week's end, which may give it added attraction — and urgency. I know you're terribly busy, but it'll be fun, don't you think? Willow (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly, bien sur :)

I will do what I can to help with the article, time permitting. Geometry guy 19:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah

I can't figure what to do with this mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google books feedback

Finally a sensible comment regarding the purpose of Google book links. I think some the other guys there are somewhat blinded by their dislike of Google. I can understand disliking Google (I don't like it myself actually), but obviously the Google links provide the opportunity for easy & quick verification by the community at large, which is an invaluable asset for our community based quality management.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree. And that includes verifiability for readers, not just editors. Geometry guy 18:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again!

A variation of the argument has surfaced here: WT:CITE#Linking to Google Books pages --Kmhkmh (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review problem

Sorry to bother you, but it appears someone has transcluded the PR page in one or two reviews. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Something_weird. I have looked but can't see how to fix it. I have also asked Carl. Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, just as I logged in, I saw the "something weird" at the top of my watchlist. I got your golden bar on the first click to investigate! I think I've fixed it anyway, but it won't be sorted until the next VeblenBot update. Geometry guy 22:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for all of your help, as always. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's raining thanks spam!

Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward on IP certification

Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Suggestion; momentum seems to have stalled at WT:FAC. My idea is to create a page that would be useful across all content review processes, and where we would have a centralized registry so we don't have to clutter each nomination with the same questions to repeat nominators. I'm not sure how we would name the page, so I've put it in my userspace for now-- feel free to edit. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The intention is good: to save effort and time asking standard questions at content review processes. If the idea is to work, the key is to ensure that the implementation reflects this. What you have so far looks a bit like another bureaucratic layer to nominating articles even though that is not the intention. Is it necessary for everyone to provide answers to the questions, or could they instead sign up that they will follow these basic principles in all of their nominations? Such a system will only help reviewers if they can easily find out whether a nominator has signed up. Hence I wonder if it might not be easier to ask for confirmation with each nomination. It wouldn't take so much time and could be coded into templates or preloads. Geometry guy 23:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. I've done all I can, people have already lost interest, I give up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't despair Sandy! There may be some fatigue and some distraction, but there is a genuine problem here, which editors may be more enthusiastic to address once it feels less like fire-fighting and more like project building. I intend to raise it in relation to the GA criteria, as plagiarism does occur (you will be shocked to learn!) in GAs too! (Indeed there are at least three fully documented examples at GAR.) Geometry guy 23:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have despaired :( But I know other competent people will move it forward ... or I should trim my watchlist to about a quarter of what it is now ... ElCobbola, Kablammo and Moonriddengirl are at the talk page of my userspace draft, so maybe you can join them there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nucular

Do you know any of your science geek buddies (and I say this with affection, since I married one) around here who is familiar with nuclear engineering? --Moni3 (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly do not know the scientific expertise of other editors on Wikipedia. Assuming your query is in relation to Chernobyl, I can probably comment on the nuclear physics, irradiative hazard, and/or the aerosol science myself, but not as an expert. There are almost certainly editors onwiki who specialize in these areas, but it is unlikely that such editors watchlist this page. I'm happy to ask anyway! Geometry guy 01:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A large part of my degree was nuclear physics (along with a module on atmospheric physics which focused on predicting nuclear fallout patterns after a nuclear exchange). This was back in the 'good' old days of the cold war though :) EyeSerene^talk 17:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to answer my questions, or gently correct my missteps, about the more technical aspects of what I'm writing about here? Cold War info is even better. Mrs. Moni studied some in the military about nuclear powered ships. She can answer some of my questions but not all of them. --Moni3 (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly have a go, though my expertise is somewhat rusty :) Do you mind if I read through the article and leave comments/questions etc on the talk page, or would you prefer just to throw questions my way as and when they arise? EyeSerene^talk 10:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, a talk page discussion is fine. I'm doing my best to make sense of what appear to me to be really technical issues, paraphrase and simplify them for a general reader, and still be accurate. There are a few sentences in the sandbox that I'm not sure I quite get. The lead will be rewritten as the article is rewritten. If you're up for it, it'll probably be a combo of both our questions. I appreciate what you can do. --Moni3 (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template help

Take a look at this suggestion -- is this something you'd be able to throw together? Seems like it would be useful. Mike Christie (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a modified version of {{Backwardscopyvio}} at User:Geometry guy/Misc and tested it at Talk:Æthelflæd. This template takes an additional "comments" parameter. If the comments parameter is not empty, the comments are placed in a collapsible collapsed box. If the comments parameter is missing or empty, the behavior of the template is unchanged. Let me know if you have any suggestions for improvements.

If you and Moonriddengirl approve, I will move the template from my sandbox to {{Backwardscopyvio}}. Geometry guy 16:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do approve! With great appreciation! (You can recognize my enthusiasm by my use of multiple exclamation points!) I always hope that the evidence of backwards copying will not be lost or overlooked, but it has never occurred to me that it could be placed in the template. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- please update the template. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the advantage of placing the evidence in the template is it won't get archived or otherwise lost in threaded discussion.

This might also be an opportunity to move the template to the more neutral name at {{Backwardscopy}} created by Moonriddengirl (there are only four redirects to fix) and tweak the wording: to my mind, "this page" refers to the talk page, and I would suggest "This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag the article as a copyright violation of the following source:"

One last question: what do you do when there are multiple reverse copies? I ask because there is an odd piece of code which converts "The citation is in:" to "The citations are in:" if the title2 parameter is present and non-empty, but then does nothing else!

Let me know what you think. Geometry guy 17:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving it to "backwardscopy" works for me. :) And I agree with you that changing it from "this page' to "this article" is a good idea. I don't remember if I've ever run into multiple reverse copies, though it's certainly possible. I would probably have put multiple templates on the page. I was not even aware there was teh option to include a second title. I wonder if any article talk pages use it? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets find out! See Category:Title2 parameter use: if there are any they will appear here (eventually). Geometry guy 17:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, great.:) Now here's hoping that if any are, I didn't do it. :D I have a terrible memory but would like to think it's not quite that bad.... --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is looking pretty empty so far (apart from my test) and the job queue is small, so the servers should have got there by now. Meanwhile, do you want the template to advertise the new feature? See the example at the bottom of User:Geometry guy/Misc for a possible mechanism. If you don't that's also fine. Geometry guy 17:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! That sounds like a good idea. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Okay, I think that's done. You may want to swing by Template:Backwardscopy/doc at some point: I've updated the documentation (code writers are notorious for ignoring documentation), but my text and examples may benefit from additional tweaks. Geometry guy 19:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Technology Barnstar
		For taking the time to help make Template:Backwardscopy immeasuraby better. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so maybe it's not all that technological; I wouldn't know. :) It's beyond me, anyway. But I am grateful to you for giving up part of your day to implement Mike Christie's brilliant idea. I don't use this template daily, but I use it often enough that I expect it to make a difference in my work, anyway, and I hope it will help avoid content being removed that rightfully belongs to us. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I'm not a barnstar collector but I value the appreciation and kind words that go with them. It was a pleasure to implement Mike's idea, and I'm glad if it helps you (and others) in the important and difficult work you do. Technologically, it was only difficult because I am not confident with html, and embedding tables within templates is a pain in wikicode. At some point in the future, a more expert template editor will come along and clean up the code considerably. For now I hope it works at least! Please do not hesitate to report any glitches here. Also if you would like any additional functionality in the future, let me know, and I will try to add it. Geometry guy 20:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Quehanna images

I uploaded some nice new images of Quehanna Wild Area from Flickr, and swapped in one new image. I am not sure which other image to swap out (if any), so I started a discussion at Talk:Quehanna Wild Area‎ if you'd like to weigh in. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing from GA reviewing (at least for now)

As there are now two requests for community reassessment because of articles I've recently declined to list, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Joseph Moir/1 and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Line Mode Browser/1, I'll not be doing any more reviews until some conclusion has been reached on those. Who knows, perhaps after excessive exposure to FAC I'm beginning to expect too much of GAs. I don't think so, but it's a certainly a possibility. I'll be interested to see what other editors think in any event. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will also be interested to see how these turn out (I haven't studied or commented on either yet). All my experience of your reviews is that you focus on the issues that really matter, but on minor points you do not use the GA criteria or GA reviewing to push your own preferences. As such you have been, and hope you will continue to be, an exemplar at GA, where often in the past, and sometimes still, reviews miss important issues (e.g., do the sources say what the article claims?) but require details that go beyond the criteria.

In my own small way (I don't edit nearly as much as you) I will continue to promote the principles that you and I share. Geometry guy 00:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the only issue we might disagree about is that I no longer believe that those principles are achievable without changes to the way that wikipedia is governed, changes that are clearly not going to happen. Malleus Fatuorum 02:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not governed. Most of the time this doesn't matter (and may even be a good thing), as editors can go about their business unhindered. Sometimes it does: for example it is extremely difficult to produce definitive articles on controversial topics or nationalistic/fringe/marginal topics, as those with a stake in the controversy/nation/fringe are going to invest more time than those without. It is not at all clear how this can be solved, but the first step is to focus on the most important problems: are they kiddie admins, civility, or the shape of mince pies? Or are they about POV pushers getting their way through abuse of admin powers? Geometry guy 22:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE. The line mode browser reassessment was closed by SilkTork as an appropriate fail. After some time (due to being busy last year), I got to the Joseph Moir reassessment and found substantial plagiarism: very contemporary grounds for failure! Geometry guy 23:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking something with you re GAR

I've just closed this GAR as it seems like about as open-and-shut a case as there could possibly be. The article was never reviewed at GAN and was never listed as a GA, only the project tags were changed to GA by a new editor. I haven't reflected this in the article history though, as it just seems to have been a misunderstanding of the classification system by one editor. Is that OK do you think?

It seems like there are a few more that could perhaps usefully be closed as well. Do you have a rule of thumb for how long to wait after the last comment is appropriate before gauging consensus? A week? (Obviously I'm not thinking of closing the two that involve me.) Malleus Fatuorum 15:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with your close. It is something I would have spotted at an early stage if I were not so busy IRL: I would call that an "administrative close" in that it does not generate an article history event.

I'm not regularly checking GARs at the moment (I will be less busy from spring next year), but other editors such as SilkTork and Aaron north have been getting involved. The GAR archiving guidelines provide some rules of thumb for closing GARs, but the most recent last comment is not the only gauge I use: overall activity in recent weeks is significant: if there hasn't been any, then a couple of days may be enough. Sometimes it is helpful to post an "intention to close" and wait a couple of days. Also, if the consensus is clear, less time is needed. Finally, I prefer to close GARs after I have checked the comments made against the current article and the criteria. The more detailed a check I can make, the more willing I am to make an early call. It is also sometimes helpful to ask at WT:GAN for further comments. Geometry guy 00:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed Aaron North's involvement in particular, but it seems to be largely down to you to close GARs, for better or for worse. Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron has closed quite a few recently, which has been very helpful. I am of course happy to continue contributing to the process, and will have a look at the weekend. Geometry guy 09:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely I'll probably be quite a bit busier next year, as I've decided to start working towards an MSc in statistics. My wife has a PhD, so she tends to pooh-pooh masters degrees, but I thought what the hell. In preparation I've recently been revising some fairly basic maths, and it's frightening how much I've forgotten. Should be fun though. Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's great that you are planning to do a masters (I have an MSc myself, which was good preparation for the PhD). Obviously I approve of you doing some more maths... it will make you an even better editor - as if that were possible ;) Hope you enjoy it! Geometry guy 22:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only managed to look at one GAR so far. I got distracted writing my guide for the forthcoming arbcom elections. Geometry guy 01:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well Gguy, at the end of the day it goes without saying that you've let the cat out of the bag, though it does me the world of good to see you taking the bull by the horns. Personally I prefer to keep my cards close to my chest - discretion being the better part of valour - so I hope at the end of the day the whole ball of wax doesn't prove too hot too handle. At the end of the day when push comes to shove, the elections are the only game in town. That said, in this day and age there are bigger fish to fry and the bottom line is that laughter is the best medicine. At the end of the day. Or am I just talking through my chapeau? EyeSerene^talk 13:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EyeSerene for Arbcom!!!! Geometry guy 21:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Although perhaps you over-egged the pudding. [reply]

He he :D When I feel as though I'm not receiving enough abuse via Wikipedia's regular community collaboration processes, that'll be the time to think about standing for Arbcom... EyeSerene^talk 08:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoyed your guide although a little concerned about lack of correlation and the actual vote.--Salix (talk): 16:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean it's a guide in which the voting recommendations don't reflect the criteria or the comments?? Gasp... that's.... that's... unprecedented! :) Geometry guy 21:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cliches

I'm not sure I even want to think about what "a wide birth" might mean. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! I hereby dedicate this typo to Jimbo ;) Geometry guy 08:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tis the season...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. (The image, while not medieval or equine, is by one of my favorite poets and artists, William Blake.) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ealdgyth! Yuletide Greetings to you too, and to all those visiting this page over the holiday season. Geometry guy 19:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings!

	<font=3> Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays, Happy New Year, and all the best in 2011! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for the copy editing, it is very much appreciated. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is indeed possible that I possibly did it wrong again.... ;-)-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. We all have our blind spots. Geometry guy 23:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Dyslexia is not for nothing called word blindness.....-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help with the GAR of Saint Croix Macaw. Very much appreciated. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all efforts have improved the article, hence the encyclopedia, so we all have reason to be happy! Geometry guy 22:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allaroundamazingbarnstar.png

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		I saw how spread out your edits have been on the edit counter and I think you deserve this. OO(talk)(useless text here) 23:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be misled by edit counters! Anyway, I'm still enjoying the cake I pinched from Moni thanks to your tip. ;) 23:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

promoting a band

Hi there! Could you please take a look at this edit, and the article history and talk page, and deal with this? Thanks! Argyriou (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It is easier to defend an article against spam and unsourced information if the article is reliably sourced and well-referenced. I encourage you to improve it accordingly! Geometry guy 23:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Thatcher (TPS request)

I encourage all editors reading this, in particular those in the UK who frequent this page (EyeSerene? SilkTork? Salix?), to take a look at the Margaret Thatcher article. Whatever your views on Margaret Thatcher, we need a better article on her than this! See also User talk:Malleus Fatuorum#Margaret Thatcher. Geometry guy 23:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback template

I posted recently at Template talk:Talkback requesting that an automatic signature be added; I didn't get any feedback there. It's quite a widely used template and I suspect many of those that use it don't have it on their watchlists. What would you advise for advertising the suggested change more widely? Should I simply request an editprotected and see what the admin does? Or is there a better way to get input to something like this? Mike Christie (talk – library) 22:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could raise the question at the Village Pump and/or open an RfC on the template talk page. An editprotected request would be a faster way to make the change: I would be happy to respond, so long as I can be sure exactly what change is desired, and that it will do no harm.

However, this raises another issue: you should be an admin! Maybe you don't want to be, but I hope my example demonstrates that it is possible to be an admin without getting embroiled in ANI, blocking, etc. Okay, I accept I got involved in one major ArbCom case, but that was an exception, and I didn't get involved because I was an admin. There are plenty of uncontroversial and unglamorous aspects to the admin bit (apart from editing protected pages, access to deleted pages is really useful, as is the ability to move pages and contributions freely), and these tools should be available to all editors who have demonstrated that they care primarily about the encyclopedia in their contributions. I would be honoured to nominate you. Geometry guy 23:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I am flattered. The problem for me is that I so rarely need access to the tools that it seems silly to go through an RfA. What would the community gain by making me an admin? It's been a long time since I even ran into a vandal persistent and rapid enough to require immediate blocking; moves I usually run through WP:RM as a matter of courtesy; and I often find editprotected requests require either other discussions or expertise that I don't have. So it just doesn't seem worth the trouble. Thank you very much, though!

I think I'll raise it at the Village Pump, when I get a minute; probably later this week. That seems a good place to get enough people's attention. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the Village Pump. It is not necessarily a representative audience, but there are enough editors watching to spot problems.

As for adminship, I have not once regretted asking the community for the tools, even though I rarely use most of them, and have never used them to address vandalism. As I suggested above, many little things become easier, not the high profile stuff, but gnomish activities such as managing/merging/manipulating edit histories. These skills are needed more than ever (for example to remove copyvios while retaining GFDL attribution). Your Encyclopedia Needs You. Geometry guy 23:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I have not once regretted asking the community for the tools". I certainly regretted it, never again. Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blame you, Malleus, I must say. As for "Your Encyclopedia Needs You", well, I feel a bit regretful saying it, but I wouldn't spend time on Wikipedia if it weren't fun, and while clearing backlogs would feel worthy, after a while it wouldn't be fun. That way lies burnout. I'm still here because I do what I enjoy, and I haven't needed the tools for that. If I thought I would help, as well as could help, I think I would request adminship. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also edit in my leisure time (hence for "fun") and I don't spend my time clearing backlogs, other than contributing to GAR, which rarely requires admin tools and is usually pretty interesting. However, having the tools gives me more ways to contribute, hence more possibilities for enjoyable contribution. It also means there is less frustration: getting things done that need to be done is easier.

What I meant by not regretting "asking the community" is that even though I only contribute in a small way, contribute as a leisure activity, and do not use the admin tools much, I do not feel I wasted the community's time by asking for the tools. Geometry guy 23:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie

Thanks for sticking with Maggie. I'm more used to people saying "someone should do something about X" and then leaving "someone" to do the work. I'm aware that I've broken a few citations by culling stuff, so thanks for cleaning up after me. I'm unhappy with this article on so many different levels that it's hard to know where to begin. My initial tactic is just to look at every section and cut out the dead wood, which is all I've really done so far. After that ... Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. There is so much to be done with this article: fixing it would be too daunting and depressing a task to contemplate alone. I agree with your approach to chip away at the current content as a first step. My (complementary) tactic is to look at how the material is sourced and rework it so the sourcing is more faithful and reliable. Each edit we make is a improvement, one step at a time... Geometry guy 01:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really nice, surgical edit. We need lots more like that one. Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Reading the sources is quite illuminating. The section, like much of the article, is still something of a hodge-podge. However, I would rather familiarize myself with what we currently have that is reliably sourced and worth keeping before considering more substantial rewrites. "Surgery" is an apt term... Geometry guy 00:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all happy with the article's structure, with sub-headings like "Westland Helicopters", "South Africa", "Hong Kong" and so on, but I've not yet been to the library to pick up any sources, so I'm still not certain which way to go with it. Other than to keep hacking away at the dead wood that is. Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nor me. The article cannot decide whether to be chronological or thematic, and mixes the two approaches in a confused way. Geometry guy 00:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've got very little doubt that Thatcher's premierships ought to be organised thematically, but I haven't yet quite organised my thoughts. Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article kind of does that, but the problem is that several of the themes span more than one government, and the electoral cycle imposes a chronology which may not be appropriate. Geometry guy 01:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; the themes cross all three of her premierships. I've probably got no better idea of how to structure the article than you have. All I know is that it's currently pants. Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I like your idea to drop the electoral chronology. I had an alternative idea last night to have a relatively short biographical chronology, then discuss thematic material separately. I've attempted to articulate the possibilities on the article talk page in response to your latest post. Hopefully we will find a solution which works well. Geometry guy 23:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My intention right now is to get something that I think generally works, which we can then fine tune and refine. Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. I may not contribute much in the next week as I have other commitments, but feel free to bug me for views and further contributions in c.10 days time if I am not back on the case by then. Geometry guy 00:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It'll probably be back as a GA by then, and well on its way to FAC. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<Discussion continued below>

Talkback followup

A couple of folks have responded at Template talk:Talkback and I was wondering, since you're a template expert, if you could clarify a technical point for me -- is it impossible, as Xeno says, to have a signature added to a non-substituted template? And why should this template not be substituted, as the documentation asserts? What would be the harm? Or perhaps that's a question for that talk page. By the way, I'm glad to see you and Malleus working on Maggie; that's an article that's going to take some experienced editors working together to overhaul properly. Good luck with it. Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have had your questions answered at the template talk page. Adding "subst:" to the template is as much effort as adding four tildes afterwards in my view, so I don't yet see the benefit. Let me know if I have missed the point. Geometry guy 22:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Recently listed peer reviews

A tag has been placed on Template:Recently listed peer reviews requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shapley-Folkman lemma: Fresh meat for a hungry copy editor?

Hi Geometry Guy!

You helped me with the peer-review process for the Shapley-Folkman lemma article and you are a mathematician, so I am writing to inform you that the Shapley-Folkman lemma is having its Good Article review, now. (The reviewer, User:Jakob.scholbach, has made me work a lot on the article, but has indicated that he judges it as essentially at GA level.)

I also left a note at the FA Team page, asking for help in assessing how much would need to be done to get the article to FA status.

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see it passed GA. Congratulations on that. The FA team is not very active at the moment, but I would be interested in helping you get the article to FA. I suggest another peer review as a first step. Geometry guy 22:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following your suggestion, I asked for another peer-review. (I also expanded the lead and made it more self-contained for a general reader, along with expanding the economics, with the same goals.) Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watchlisting the article and the peer review, and will comment/copyedit time permitting. Geometry guy 23:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made some edits to the lead, addressing TCO's comments. It shall be 2 weeks before I can resume intensive editing. Thanks again for your help. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA request

G guy, long time no talk, Happy New Year ! I'm off tomorrow, but having a problem here, in case you can keep an eye on that. An uncited GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exterior algebra lead

Hello, I would value any comments you could make at Talk:Exterior algebra regarding the new lead of the article exterior algebra. This is a high priority mathematics article, and there has been some recent movement towards attempting to make the lead section friendlier to a general audience. I notice that you had reviewed the article in the past. I am considering starting an RfC as well to get broader input from outside of WPM, but this is probably premature at the moment. Best, Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Thatcher GA

I may not contribute much in the next week as I have other commitments... Geometry guy 00:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It'll probably be back as a GA by then, and well on its way to FAC. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GG; can you please consider commenting under point 2 here? Thanks. --John (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GG, the article is in process of a review for GA status, as you commented in the previous review your opinions as regards the article now have been requested by the reviewer and would be appreciated here, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whaddya think of Maggie now? Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I wasn't able to contribute to the article or GA review last week. I see that the article has been greatly improved thanks to tremendous efforts by Malleus and John. The prose is much better, the article is more concise, and more reliable sources have been added and used. In particular, the article is now Encarta free, and the NPOV tag is gone: congratulations!

Given the tremendous improvement, it is good to see the article back to GA status, but I think the review was a bit rushed. The reviewer should have checked the sources a bit more. At the GAR, I wasn't specifically concerned about "pro-Thatcher" sources, but about appropriate use of sources, including Britannica and Encarta, as well as the Thatcher Foundation. The following issues were missed:

There is no source for the "Titles" section: I left the Britannica and Thatcher Foundation citations there while I was clearing them out of the rest of the article. The section is probably OR, and not very interesting anyway, so I would drop it.
GlobalSecurity.org is a website which defeats Firefox and manages to open two spam pop-up windows. I do not want my gambling habit to be fed when I am reading Wikipedia ;). I have replaced it as a source.
Thatcher's biographies and The Thatcher Foundation should only be used for primary source material. This is now mostly the case, but better sources may be available. I suggest using Hansard more often for parliamentary material.
The 1992 election was sourced to an article in The Sun entitled "30 ways that Margaret Thatcher made Britain Great" in which one of the reasons was: she helped keep Neil Kinnock out of government by resigning so that John Major could take over.

I think the article is back to GA status, but I'm not so sure that the road to FA is easy. The present article has a lot of polish, and most MoS issues have been or can be fixed. However, it may be polish on an old shoe, and making the article more coherent and brilliant will not be possible without digging seriously into the wealth of available source material. Geometry guy 23:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's obviously a lot still to be done before this is ready for FAC, and that road is always lined with hard work, but the way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. The sourcing certainly needs to be beefed up, we need to check on additional sources, lots more tidying up to do, perhaps more focus on Thatcher's input into events, try to think if we can present the larger picture in a better way ... but it's all doable and needn't take forever. No point in looking at the elephant and thinking "Wow, I'll never be able to eat that!" Better to get that knife and fork out and start eating. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. At least now when we open an edit window on the article, we are not distracted by multiple problems, but can concentrate on fixing a particular issue. Geometry guy 00:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need to say this just to get it out of the way. Your comment about "polishing an old shoe" reminded me of a similar complaint that was made against me during the Grace Sherwood TFA debacle, which you may not be aware of. Basically I was accused of copyediting that article to the extent of hiding copyright violations/plagiarism, and ultimately of deliberately encouraging the nominator (who was also a sitting arbitrator) to rush to FAC in a deliberate attempt to force his resignation, because I knew that the article wasn't ready and that would be the inevitable result. I'm really not in the mood for a replay, so I'll leave the article's further development to you and John. I've done all that I initially intended to do anyway, not to make the article an embarrassment. I wish you luck with it. Malleus Fatuorum 02:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courage, Malleus. I am well aware of the Grace Sherwood story, and any implicit or explicit criticism of you was totally unjustified and unfounded. The editor at fault - RLevse - paid the price for plagiarizing content, and quite right too.

I hope your remarks above are just late-night "getting things off your chest" and that you don't seriously take my comment as a similar complaint. You have done a wonderful job to repair a broken article.

As for FAC, it has never been my aim to bring the article to featured status, nor to see it on the main page. I simply want to help make an article on a very significant UK figure as good as it can be. I'm happy to lend my support at FAC if others want to go that way, but I do not personally see that as the ultimate goal of writing an article. Geometry guy 11:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that as an ultimate goal either, but I do see FAC as an ultimate test of whether or not the article can stand up to independent scrutiny. It's the best way I know to get half a dozen or so experienced editors to take a close look at every aspect of an article anyway. But given history I'm not going to push anyone or anything in that direction, so it's job done for me. Malleus Fatuorum 14:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that FAC provides a valuable test - it is a pity that the reward for success is 24 hours of stress and vandalism :)

Thanks again for all your work on the elephant. I will eat on, one bite at a time, chewing over the sources and making the article more faithful to whatever material I can find. Feel free to resume the feast any time you have the stomach for it. Geometry guy 01:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain that you and John can manage quite well without my interference. Besides, I've got enough on my plate with witches, football referees, and the treatment of the poor. I get a bit impatient with the high-profile articles like Thatcher anyway, so I'd likely only end up being blocked again. Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an open invitation. Good luck with your other endeavours. Geometry guy 02:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great edits GG. (And MF though I've already said that.) There are only a couple of things I really want to change about the article and I'll take the details to article talk. What you've done looks great. A privilege to work with you both. Malleus, who did you think would block you for improving the Thatcher article? Conservapedia admins? (I hear they're really strict over there). Keep up the good work. --John (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Grace Sherwood story is illuminating if you're unfamiliar with it. Malleus Fatuorum 13:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, and welcome to my talk page. I'm likewise impressed by all the work you have done to the article, and should have said "hi" sooner. You and Malleus made great strides while I was away, and I would have been dishing out the barnstars if I did that sort of thing! Anyway, kind words are much appreciated all around! I will continue familiarizing myself with the article and its sources. Geometry guy 20:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to my talk page, Sage, and sorry for the slow response. The mentoring job sounds interesting and challenging - what is the pay like? ;)

I'm not really an Awesome Wikipedian, as I don't have the time to contribute significantly to the encyclopedia, and tend to jump from topic to topic according to my latest whim. (So a less jocular answer to your request is that I cannot make the time commitment, sorry.)

I was interested to discover that when I was so "identified", on 21 April 2009, two "Awesome Wikipedian" processes were operating in parallel (by Bibliomaniac and RLevse), so I have a twin, who turns out to be Moonriddengirl. Now, she truly is an Awesome Wikipedia, dedicated to the enormous challenge of cleaning up copyright violations and plagiarism. Have you asked her to help with your project? Geometry guy 22:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS. For a truly awesome barnstar, see File:Barnstarofawesomeness.jpg.

Thanks! I don't remember if anyone has explicitly asked Moonriddentgirl to be an ambassador, although I'm pretty sure she's come across some of the activity from students and mentors last term. And yeah, I'd love to have her as an ambassador; she's also an Awesome Wikipedian. But I've seen enough of you over the years to know that you are one too!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'm still here anyway, and will be glad to help in whatever small ways I can. Geometry guy 23:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. The main places we want to try to get students to use to request feedback and ask questions are the talk pages of the course, so if you want to watchlist some of the courses and just jump in whenever you see a need, that's an easy way to help out. And if you want to keep up with what else is going on at a regular clip, you can subscribe to the ambassador newsletter. Cheers--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape

I know you said this 3 years ago, when voting to delist Runescape from GA,you said "whom do I pray to?" When it says something about a prayer, it is not mening you pray to god, it is a skill. Prayer is something that will help you in combat, and you just click on a icon, and you get the result that is called a prayer. Thought I should tell you. Regards!UserDarkJak495 talk orange 00:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel reassured. I was experiencing a bit of existential angst on that issue as well.Solenodon (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm devastated. I have to go back and reevaluate my entire life over the last 3 years. All this time I was wondering whom to pray to without realizing that prayer itself was the skill, the icon I needed to click. My only solace is that in the interim, I have realized a deeper truth: "to whom do I pray?" is better grammar. Geometry guy 21:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

On the Elimination Chamber GAR page you said you'd give the editors a few days to fix them, how much is a few days?--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 00:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is flexible. I was planning to look at the article again on Sunday. If there are no significant improvements, I will delist (so you have lots of time to fix it before renominating!), but if there are some positive changes, then I'm happy to keep the GAR open longer, for another week or more, according to the best interests of improving the article. I hope that helps! Geometry guy 00:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psychic?

I was just about to post almost the exact same thing.[2]. Weird. Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Separated at birth ;) Geometry guy 23:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]