User talk:Geometry guy/Archive 28

Regarding withdrawing GAs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Would you mind communicating this to User:Racepacket? This is the basis of the RFC against him. --Rschen7754 19:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I have commented at WT:WikiProject Good articles#Good Article Withdrawal in reply to User:Racepacket. I have also been following the netball reviews, user talk discussions and Racepacket's RfC. It seems to me that there have been unsubstantiated assumptions of bad faith on almost all sides, and overreactions to misunderstandings. Here are two examples which mirror each other:

• Racepacket: "User:LauraHale's eagerness to promote netball and its quest for inclusion in the Olympic games..."
• Laura Hale: "Racepacket reviewed both Netball and Netball in the Cook Islands with the clear intention of pushing a point of view that the sport was not popular in general..."

In reading all relevant discussion I could find, the evidence for either of these motives/intentions is close to zero. Instead, both editors appear to me to be motivated by a desire to improve Wikipedia articles, including those on netball.

I'm reluctant to stick my oar in, as it is far more important to read and listen to others, and try to understand where they are coming from, than jump in with opinions. However, I encourage you and others to continue along the road laid down by Mitch32 which accepts that the fault cannot be placed at a single door, and that moving on may be in everyone's best interests, as well as the interests of the encyclopedia. Geometry guy 22:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If you, Geometry guy, want to step and and replace me as the spokesman for the NPOV netball policy position, I will be happy to step aside. I have no inherent interest in the sport, but took up the GA review out of duty to address our queue. I had been reluctant to make further comments on the articles, but based on the feedback I received, I left a peer review of Netball in the Cook Islands. As you can see from the edit summary, it was not well-received. I do not want to harass or cause distress, I just want the NPOV restored before the articles move to GA or FA. Please help, because my actions are being misinterpreted by LauraHale as mean-spirited. Any guidance would be appreciated. Racepacket (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to comment at the peer review on the issues you raised. I also think your actions are being misinterpreted, even by an arbitrator. However, that is good reason to step back and allow editors the chance to reevaluate events without creating new issues which may further fan the flames of a dispute.

In my view, you made a serious misjudgement in taking the discussion of the netball GA to meta. In doing so, you unnecessarily personalized a discussion which should have remained focused on content. If you are able to apologize sincerely and unreservedly for that, it would be a good first step towards rebuilding the bridges of good faith. Geometry guy 07:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have said before that I thought that I was filling out an online comment/email form. There are no email addresses given on the website and there was no indication that the comment was going to a widely-read wiki: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foundation_wiki_feedback&action=historysubmit&diff=2467909&oldid=2467699 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Racepacket (talk • contribs) 07:42, 4 April 2011

The Wikimedia page states "The comments you enter here are publicly viewable, editable, and deletable."

However, this is beside the point. Do you think it makes Laura Hale feel any better about your actions that you did not intend for her to notice? It doesn't matter that your intentions were to try and smooth your interactions with Laura Hale: they have had precisely the opposite effect. If you want to understand why multiple editors are doubting your good faith, you need to put yourself in their shoes, for example by asking how you would feel if someone contacted your employer, suggesting that you needed "guidance" on improving your interactions.

Similarly, concerning issues of plagiarism, you may agree with me that Wikipedia doesn't publish original ideas, so issues related to close paraphrasing are not about pointing the finger, but ensuring that articles contain no copyvios and are written in an encyclopedic way. However, even though you made no accusations, you need to understand that for someone working in academia even the slightest suggestion that they might have contributed to plagiarism is associated with a major stigma that they have passed off someone else's idea as their own.

If you believe that you don't need to apologize, because your intentions were good, and you did no wrong, then you are missing the point and will just dig yourself into a deeper hole. If instead you accept responsibility for the consequences of your actions, not only their intended consequences, and sympathise with other editors, then you might in turn find yourself less misunderstood. Geometry guy 21:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I understand that LauraHale is under a lot of stress. I understand that she misunderstood my reasons for wanting to address the close paraphrasing problem in the article. I understand that publicly claiming that she is exempt from the rules of grammar because she is an American trying to write in a New Zealand dialect did not help her in academia. However, I did not contact her employer, which is the University where she is a graduate student. I am pleased that the misunderstand is behind us, and she has withdrawn from the RFC/U and no longer believe that sanctions should be imposed against me. I understand that constructive actions frequently have unintended consequences, so the best thing we can do is let her collect herself and move away from personalizing actions, and focus on substance. I hope that we have reached that point. Racepacket (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

She retracted her statements because you attempted to give her consequences IRL. Heck, if you did that to me, I probably would withdraw my statement too. Sorry for butting in; I feel this distinction had to be made. I'll leave this conversation now. --Rschen7754 03:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have read the discussions and am perfectly aware that the Wikimedia foundation is not Laura Hale's employer. However, you believed they were when you contacted them, so instead of Wikilawyering, why not apologize? It costs you nothing to do so. Understanding others is a first step: applying that understanding in your interactions is the next. Instead you make matters worse (for yourself) with

• "I understand that publicly claiming that she is exempt from the rules of grammar because she is an American trying to write in a New Zealand dialect did not help her in academia."

Where did you get the idea that this would be a helpful comment? Far from "moving away from personalizing actions", you make an inaccurate and exaggerated statement that amounts to a personal attack. I suggest you stop trying to score points, and strike it. Geometry guy 10:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you

		The Good Article Reviewer's Barnstar
		Please consider this a modest thank you for your efforts in improving The Incredible Melting Man and guiding it through the GAR process. I was confident the article could be brought up to GA status, but not many editors would have been so thorough and willing to help as you, and I truly believe the article is much better off thanks to your input.

You are welcome, but thank you for the kind words. Good luck with your further endeavours - I hope that some of the more general comments I made about encyclopedic writing will help you in the future. Feel free to contact me if you would like my advice on another article. Geometry guy 19:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC location

I am, as a gesture of cooperation and willingness to listen, planning to start the RFC that Racepacket wants, probably over the weekend. IMO the ultimate conclusion is foregone and the location unimportant, but perhaps someone will learn something from it. Do you mind if it's at WT:WPGA? There are other options, including WT:COUNCIL and a subpage in the RFC space. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

'Tis noble of you to make a gesture of goodwill towards an editor who alas seems more willing to engage in obfuscation and wikilawyering than gestures of goodwill himself. I was particularly disappointed by this contribution to the RfArb, which avoided responding to (and ran counter to) Newyorkbrad's request for no fuss.

Any editor can start an RfC at any suitable location; it does not matter whether I mind or not. What matters is that the time lost by editors contributing to the RfC serves a useful purpose towards improving the encyclopedia, rather than being wasted. It is up to the editor starting the RfC to shoulder that responsibility. I do not personally believe a gesture of goodwill on an issue of substantial agreement is sufficient grounds for an RfC, or I would have started one myself. Geometry guy 21:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I know that I'm permitted to start an RFC; what I'd like to know is your personal preference for its location. WPGA doesn't seem especially active to me, so it seems as harmless a location as any other, but if you thought it likely to disrupt that page's normal activity, then I'd choose a different location. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

WT:WPGA is fine from that perspective: discussing general issues related to GA processes and reviewing is part of its normal activity. Geometry guy 20:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

To help us get useful information, instead of merely opening another front for WWIII, I'm going to put this off until after the ArbCom request is settled. There's no need for haste here, especially since haste is likely to result in burying the question in long strings of accusations against individuals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, if it helps, I promise not to participate in the discussion regarding any RfC related to the Good Article issue. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Racepacket might be open but the roads issue are not really a party to the filing, except in so far as some roads individuals were involved with trying to resolve the ongoing issues between myself and Racepacket. If it also helps, whatever the consensus related to the decision, I wil agree to honor and follow through with. --LauraHale (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to LauraHale or anyone else participating in the RFC. The spirit of Wikipedia is to encourage involvment, not try to invent reasons to exclude people from a discussion if they happen to disagree with one's views. Racepacket (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

PR template question

We haven't been in touch lately, I hope things are going well. Do you have any thoughts about this question [1]? — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Logarithm FAC

Hi, there is an ongoing discussion at FAC of logarithm mostly concerning the first sentence of the article. Currently it reads "The logarithm of a number to a given base is the exponent to which the base must be raised to produce that number.", but two reviewers (Noetica and Tony1) consider this suboptimal. Since the discussion essentially boils down to the question whether a mathematical concept should first be defined properly or by paraphrasing it, I'm seeking some advice to balance the two points of view. I appreciate any input you might have. Thx, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

G guy, pls let me know if you are planning, or have time, to visit this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am willing to comment on this within 24 hours. Geometry guy 22:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Racepacket and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --LauraHale (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

RFAR Racepacket

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Netball and the Olympic Movement

First, as a preface, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket is going on and the issues of the Good Article process have come up in regards to Netball, Netball in the Cook Islands, Netball and the Olympic Movement. The first has come up for a GAR. I'm uncomfortable with that, not because I don't think the article is good, but rather because the evidence shows a history of sock puppeting and canvassing. But whatever.

My bigger concerns are Talk:Women's sport at the Olympics, where User talk:Basement12 I think has said that Netball and the Olympic Movement is problematic and needs to be nominated for GAR because of the extension copying between Women's sport at the Olympics and Netball and the Olympic Movement or because the Netball and the Olympic Movement does not stand alone with information to warrant its own topic and thus isn't worth Good Article status. I may not be understanding what he is saying correctly. I'm also unclear as to what the guidelines are for Good Articles. Can you help me understand what is going on? What relevant guidelines apply? Are there issues with Netball and the Olympic Movement that I can fix to help improve chances of passing a GAR? If the articles really should be merged, then I would understand that. I'm just confused because I haven't seen that... but if that is the consensus decision, then I'll live with that. If Netball and the Olympic Movement doesn't meet the Good Article criteria and needs to be delisted, that's fine. (And I'd be happy to work towards fixing it but I'm just not certain what I'm supposed to be fixing.) Anyway, if you have any guidance and insight into what is going on, that would be helpful because I'm a bit lost here. :( Any help would be massively appreciate because I'm a bit confused. --LauraHale (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Albert Einstein page

Hi there. May I request your help as a neutral voice to help settle a dispute? The issue is about whether it is appropriate (in terms of notability) to include an ethnicity label in the infobox for Albert Einstein. I think that the discussion on the talk page there has wandered off course (at least between me and one other editor), so I wanted a disinterested person to analyze the rational arguments and weigh an opinion. If you would be willing to do this and wish to hear my thoughts on the matter, I would be happy to explain my reasoning. LJosil (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

GA bot

For old time's sake, I went back into the archives of Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, where I first brought up the idea of having a bot automate the nominations list at WP:GAN. I noticed through my trip to nostalgia land that even with people criticizing the bot out of fear, out of not really knowing what was going on, you were there as my patient defender, going as far as to write multi-paragraph messages to re-assure people that the bot is a step in the right direction. Better yet, you challenged me to make the bot the most versatile, the most robust, the best bot it could possibly be. After the bot had been incubating for a year, you took another look at the bot — like an old pal from a past life — and you said it was ready for the big leagues. I say GA bot is my finest piece of coding yet, but were it not for your support and your advice, it would not be nearly as awesome as it is today. Thank you for everything you've done to help me as a programmer and the good article nomination process. harej 06:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, James, for the generous thought to add such kind words to my talk page. I'm glad that you think GA bot is your finest piece of code to date, and am honored that I helped in some way. I've long been interested in automating GA processes, so I was grateful that you stepped forward, and responded so well to the challenge to make the bot as versatile and robust as it could be.

Introducing changes that affect many editors is always difficult: the long-term benefits have to be weighed against the upheaval and potential teething problems. I think members of the GA community were quite right to articulate their concerns, and that it was important to be as open and informative as possible about what automation would achieve and what it could not, while also optimizing the bot to meet community needs as far as possible.

It is a credit both to your efforts and to the GA community that when the bot was finally rolled out big-time, it was embraced by reviewers. Not only did they readily adapt as individuals to the changes, but many went out of their way to help others, fix teething problems, and ensure the transition was as smooth as possible.

Even now, a nominator or reviewer occasionally does things "the old way", and WT:GAN remains a friendly place for mistakes to be spotted and help provided. Geometry guy 20:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised

• I hope you're not becoming bitter and cynical. I mean, that wouldn't be strange, since you would just be the latest to do so. But still, I would rather see you enjoying yourself. Sorry if this seems decontextualized, but you know how things go when context is added. Good luck in all you do  – Ling.Nut 00:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

  Hi Ling, I'm always happy to see you around here. I've always been an idealist about WP, and intend to stay that way. Geometry guy 01:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Mattisse

You, I note, were one of the last people to interact with user Mattisse on enWP prior to xyr final indefinite block.Your considered opinion on seemingly similar disruptive behaviour on Wikinews would be welcome (see n:WN:WC.) --Brian McNeil /^talk 07:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian McNeil (talk • contribs)

leave him alone, man

I been biting my tongue for days, now. If you really, really feel that you need to be the defender of the Wiki, then do it off of his talk page. Mall-man has his issues, but you are just being an ass bugging him on his talk page. Leave the guy that space. TCO (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome TCO and thanks for taking the time to stop by and express yourself. I have a couple of remarks.

• You know almost nothing about me save for a few snippits of text, so I don't know how you can presume to understand my motivations or come to the conclusion that I "really, really... need to be the defender of the Wiki".
• I have no idea what you are hoping to achieve by posting here. Malleus is a mature and experienced editor and does not need your protection. When he had nothing else to say and he told me to go away, I went away. However, if I want to discuss a matter with him again, I will, and I don't appreciate being warned off by a third party.
• I hope you are not in the habit of referring to other editors "having issues" or "being an ass". Insults do not help you to make your point and may be perceived as rudeness or personal attacks.

If you are concerned about the problems facing Wikipedia, then I would be happy to discuss them with you. Thank you for your attention. Geometry guy 10:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

What he said. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy :) Geometry guy 10:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Erm.  – Ling.Nut 15:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

yup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome, monosyllabic friends :) For maximum understanding, I recommend words and sentences... Geometry guy 20:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

In some situations, less is more. Now if only I had learned that before the debacle. ;-)  – Ling.Nut 10:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket closed

An arbitration case regarding Racepacket has closed and the final decision is now viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Racepacket (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for one year
2. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) is admonished for blocking editors with whom he has had recent editorial disputes
3. LauraHale (talk · contribs) and Racepacket are prohibited from interacting with one another
4. Hawkeye7 is prohibited from taking administrative action "with regards to, or at the behest of LauraHale".

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 21:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

RfA: Control mathematician

Hi GG!

There is a control mathematician who likes to write WP articles who has nominated himself for RfA. I noted that you (at least the last time I checked your self description say a year ago) rarely use the tools, but were still a valuable administrator. Thus, I wanted to inform you.

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:GATable problem

Hi. I was recently filling out a GA review and kept getting Pending come up in view mode in two of the fields, rather than the text I had actually written there. Turns out the problem was the inclusion of http links in the fields (see [2]) – if this is indeed a bug, could you possibly try to find a way to fix it? Thanks very much. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 13:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This is caused by the equals ("=") sign in the url. The template {{GATable/item}} reads this as a parameter name and hence does not recognise the comment. You can probably fix it by putting "3=" at the beginning of any comment containing such a url. Geometry guy 23:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For never failing to write a funny edit summary when archiving WP:PR, I award you this Barnstar of Good Humor. Buggie111 (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I started these edit summaries both to raise awareness of the global nature of Wikipedia and also to keep PR in editors' minds (after automation made the page essentially static). However, these days, I think Wikipedia needs a lot more good-natured humor to function, and I am glad to contribute to that. Geometry guy 23:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/2

May I congratulate you on the enormous amount of thought and knowledge that you have brought to this, even though I know closure is still in progress. I really appreciate the longer rationale, and I look forward to reading the final "installment" of your thoughts. --John (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you kind remarks, John. I hope editors of all viewpoints will get something out of the fresh air that community reassessment brings. Geometry guy 00:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Community reassessment can bring opprobrium on the nominator, or the reviewer, but I don't think I've ever seen so many accusations of malfeasance per sentence as in this one. Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It didn't start out brilliantly, but I've seen worse at GAR (or at least similarly bad) and it has settled down to more productive discussion now. As I mentioned on Jimbo-talk, I think the community owes you thanks, Malleus, for opening the reassessment, which was badly needed. Geometry guy 01:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo-talk? I'll have to go and check now what the great man thinks. This experience has made me reconsider my decision to abandon GA reviewing; there's a quality issue, it's not about my happiness or the nominator's happiness. Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• GG, was your input there intended as a close? I at first assumed that it was. Apologies if I got that wrong. --John (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

  No worries. When providing such detailed review comments, I think it is helpful to give others an opportunity to comment/query. Ideally, the close should just summarize the consensus of review comments. However, I do think the reassessment is now ready to be closed, and my comments were intended to bring it to that point. Geometry guy 11:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/2

I've now closed the above (got to it later than I'd hoped because my daughter's started uni this weekend). However, the {{articlehistory}} seems to have been filled in on 19 Sept and I can't find the article at WP:GA; someone may have jumped the gun a tad. On the other hand, I may be missing something. Your advice would be appreciated... EyeSerene^talk 20:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Gimmebot delisted it, so I think that's been taken care of. I really appreciate the work you both did; I know this is a contentious and unpleasant area. I hope that by shining a light into it we can make it better. You two have both done that and I know it was a lot of work. Thank you. --John (talk) 07:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again EyeSerene - I just read your eloquent closing remarks. I think the article was delisted earlier by accident, as my review was misinterpreted as a close. However, the date in ArticleHistory has been fixed, so everything seems to be in order now. Geometry guy 08:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem, it's always a pleasure to hear from you and I'm glad I was able to be of assistance (and thanks for taking a look at the AH). I trust the article can now progress towards GA/FA status free from encumberment! Best, EyeSerene^talk 16:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Shapley–Folkman lemma at FAC

Hi Geometry Guy!

You deserve a break after your excellent mediation at the 9/11 page. However, life is unfair! ;)

I want to thank you again for your work on the SF lemma, and just let you know that I nominated it at FAC. I noted on my talk page my two main concerns, in a discussion with MF. I expect that the article will improve with further copy editing, at least, and hope that it may pass (with reasonable improvements after reasonable criticism).

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There have been three positive reviews, and no opposes. A mathematician's review couldn't hurt, if you have time. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments there, GG. Protonk (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for your criticism. I am already working on improvements responding to your concerns.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Very good. Incidently, I quite agree with you that featured articles need not be (and are not) perfect. Indeed, article quality is a sufficiently subjective and ill-defined concept that "perfection" makes no sense. However, I think we should strive to make every article the best it can be. And I mean that in an absolute sense, not relative to existing treatments in the literature. Articles should be like true athletes, who aim to better themselves, not simply beat the competition. My review comments are intended to help editors striving to make such improvement. Geometry guy 18:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Interview with Wikimedia Foundation

Hi GG, I hope this finds you well. My name is Matthew and I'm one of the Storytellers working for the Wikimedia Foundation on the 2011 fundraiser. This year we're broadening the scope and the voices of the Wikipedians we profile in the fundraising banners and appeals. While Jimbo has been very successful bringing in the treasure in previous years, he alone doesn't represent the diversity of people who make the projects so important. I'm curious if you would like to participate in an interview with me for this year's efforts? They usually last 60 minutes and I would ask a number of questions about your personal editing experiences and about Wikipedia more broadly. Also, you were recommended to me by Scartol, who I recently interviewed. If you're interested, please email mroth (at) wikimedia.org and we can set up a good time. Thank you! Matthew (WMF) 01:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking Matthew. I might have been a good interviewee for your purposes a couple of years ago, but I see too many negatives and structural problems with Wikipedia now. Geometry guy 22:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your consideration, sorry to hear that. Please be in touch if you want to discuss anything with us. Best wishes, Matthew (WMF) 20:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Geometry guy, I've also been approached and have agreed to participate, because my own experience has been very positive. I'd be interested to hear your take, though; by email if you like. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I bet you wouldn't like to hear my take. Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested; I know that my own experience is not universal, or even particularly representative. I probably wouldn't have much to say in response, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll spare you the gory details, but Wikipedia and I parted company some time ago. I only contribute here now because of the Creative Commons licensing, in the hope that what we write here might one day be hosted on a site run by grown-ups. Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I know you don't really care what I think but that's a fairly noble reason to contribute. One of the best parts of Wikipedia is the knowledge that the content will outlive the edifice. Protonk (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It is one reason I do it. Since I am not likely to be President, King, or center fielder for the Yankees, it is my minimal bribe to humanity to leave me the flip alone. Oh, and a legacy. I declined Matthew's kind invite on the ground that seeing my face or words on a banner ad, ads which are disliked, will be unlikely to endear me to other editors, the opposite in fact. As for rank, I'm sure most editors are as it is hard to edit Wikipedia while bathing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest separate DRVs

For List of important publications in biology and List of important publications in sociology. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes that would be one way to proceed. Geometry guy 22:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Issues needing addressing

Hi Geometry guy. I've watched with interest your conversation on Elen's page, and I would genuinely appreciate some feedback if you have any to give. Specifically, I wonder if you feel I could have handled things differently. I've been over the past few months a number of times, and the only thing I could see to do differently is closing the ANI on 6 August, rather than commenting on it, suggesting an RfC would be better. That way, many things said would not have been said and the strain all round might have been averted. But since I wasn't that bold - and I think it reasonable that I wasn't - I've always remained calm and amicable, tried to discuss things directly with Kiefer and not risen to the considerable lambasting I've taken regarding this RfC.

My only other option was to turn a "blind eye" to the entire situation, but I am not willing to do this until it has been discussed. I do not want to drive Kiefer off the encyclopedia, I'm not trying to lynch him - but I think the desired outcomes are not unreasonable. I would also be happy for this to be a two way discussion, and if there is any way in which I can improve, I would be glad to hear it. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome, Worm TT, and thanks for taking the time to comment here and ask for feedback. I will let you know if and when I have some comments, but I'm mostly just asking questions for now. I have one for you: you declined an interaction ban on August 8, with the comment "he appears to be using an interaction ban with myself to circumvent an RfC". Can you explain a little more what your thinking was? Were you anticipating that this dispute should lead to an RfC/U two months ago? Thanks, Geometry guy 21:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

GG,

I suspect that the 2-month delay respected my (reasonable) request for a break, after I had devoted a weekend and more to responding to the ANI/AN discussions.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well to answer that, I'm afraid I'm going to have to point you to a few discussions, and present the timeline from my point of view. It's going to be horribly biased towards my point of view, but at least it will explain my actions.

• Prior to the ANI, I had interacted with Kiefer 3 times to the best of my knowledge, once when one of my mentees bit a new user working on an article Kiefer was interested in. There was a misunderstanding as to what when wrong there and the discussion was escalating, but I managed to de-escalate the issue. Kiefer was reasonable once he understood what was going on, and the outcome was amicable. The next time was at my RfA, where he ended up strongly supporting me. Finally, there was an incident where Kiefer was edit warring over some personal non-identifying information on a minor's page, where I admonished Kiefer rather than blocking him. I can provide links to any of these situations
• When this ANI was raised regarding personal attacks, I did some investigation into Kiefer's contribution history and saw enough problematic edits that I thought an RfC would be a better venue. I stated as much, and was told that he didn't care about my opinion. I tried to explain further, with each comment being dealt with rudely, and my motives questioned. I understand Kiefer was under a lot of stress at the time, and I repeatedly asked for the thread to be closed. Eventually I started a new section, which stated that I would be writing the RfC - in the hopes that the issues I'd found could be dealt with and the stressful ANI could be closed. It was, soon after.
• Within an hour of its close, Kiefer wrote to me on my talk page saying that I was threatening him with an RfC (he also raised the same at AN). I never intended to browbeat Kiefer, but at that point I felt an RfC was appropriate. Kiefer had a number of requests that he wanted me to meet before he would participate in the RfC, I didn't think any were unreasonable - and were worth the hassle to get Kiefer to participate. There was a bit of negotiation over an informal discussion, where Kiefer and I could thrash it out. Although the negotation failed, I went ahead and tried to get him involved in the informal discussion, which was an abject failure.
• So, I wrote the RfC. When I was finished, I left it quietly alone for a while since Kiefer asked for a month. I did watch Kiefer's contributions, to see if he had changed, and after a few more pebbles down the mountain, I requested Demiurge1000 to add his point of view so that the RfC would meet certification.

In summary, yes, I've been planning on writing the RfC for a while, tough I've been careful not to mention it unless asked, not tried to flaunt it anywhere, basically not threaten Kiefer with it. I have tried alternatives which have failed, I've tried ignoring the situation which I also believe had failed. As such, I felt the RfC was the only option remaining. The difference in time was partially due to me having to collate a lot of information, partially due to Kiefer's request that we do not raise an RfC for at least 1-2 months and partially due to the fact that I hoped it would not be necessary. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks Worm TT. I really appreciate you taking the time to comment here at such length, yet also taking care to note that you are reporting events as you perceived them (the completely natural "bias" you refer to). Text-based communication is really poor for communicating nuances and intentions (emoticons help a bit, but not much). As you see, KW commented here not long before you did, and I have no doubt he has read (or will read) your reply. I do believe you and KW will be able to communicate effectively with each other and reach a mutual understanding. I would encourage all to read and reflect on what has been written so far (and hold off writing more!), thinking about how the other editor or editors might have perceived some of the events and interactions. Geometry guy 19:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that GG, please do let me know if you have any further (more specific) feedback, even by email if preferred. KW has posted quite a bit over the past day or so, but I'm a little tied up with both the real world and other Wikipedia activities to properly digest it at the moment, which is why I haven't commented on the RfC for a day or so. I am however pleased that KW appears to actually be responding to issues, which means that an actual discussion can be had. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

See talk page

Hi Geometry guy,

I posted a quotation from the talk page of LK at the talk page of the RfC, because you suggested that I would consider his remarks and act on them (insofar as able).

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, noted. Geometry guy 23:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The little sieve poem

Thank you a lot for your help with the attribution etc. Judging from your last comment, my arguments as to the specifics of the need for RS didn't particularly convinced you. As for enthusiasm, ... WillNess (talk) 09:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC) bunch of inappropriate stuff removed. Sorry about that. WillNess (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Please also talke a look at this. This is all still a very vague idea that I have. Thanks again! WillNess (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciated you commenting here, and the thoughts you posted. My apologies for not replying sooner. Geometry guy 23:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be 10 times as hard to compute (or more) than Google's pagerank, but many thought that was impossible, too, before they did it. Maybe you know a right kind of people to do that. :) Instant changeable voting would also be a paradigm shift. Why not, that'd only make it true. There in real life, and here on WP as well. We'd need to vote here a lot - whether a source was reliable, whether it was used properly, etc. What I'm after here is some kind of quantification, in order to achieve objectification of the knowledge recovery process (by WP, which right now "uses" humans as its - subjective - agents, for that). WillNess (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

discrete?

I reverted your category specialization at Shannon–Hartley theorem because I couldn't think of anything discrete about it. Bandwidth, noise, information, continuous-time signals, all continuous stuff. What do you think? Dicklyon (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Categorization is very difficult. Ultimately everything we observe is finite, hence discrete. Here "discrete mathematics" is intended to refer to the study of essentially discrete ideas: it includes combinatorics, algorithms, graph theory, game theory, and information theory. Some people call this "concrete mathematics". In information theory, the information is the discrete aspect, but if you believe the article is better placed in another category, please be true to your own judgment. Geometry guy 22:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty familiar with information theory, and I know it has discrete aspects, such as in the constructive proof of this theorem. But information itself, the way it's defined and used in this theorem, is not discrete. So let's leave it not discrete. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, Dicklyon - can we discuss this a bit more? Discrete mathematics is really a completely different issue to Constructive mathematics: the discreteness is in the application, rather than in the model or nature of proof. In this theorem and article, information is measure in bits, and the communication in bits per second: the time may be continuous, but the data is not. Nyquist talks about "independent pulses" and Hartley discusses "the maximum number of distinct pulses". The intended application is further amplified by reference to base 2 logarithms, baud, and error correcting codes. These are all hallmarks of discrete mathematics. Geometry guy 22:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you

Thank-you for the comments here. It's not the first time I've seen comments like that, but you put things much better than I could have done. One thing I have been doing is trying to work out a better way to put things, and "distancing prose from the source material" looks good to me. For the record, I was at pains to avoid saying 'plagiarism', as that was most certainly not what I was trying to say (for one thing, discussion would be needed before coming to any conclusions, though discussing first is a concept alien to some).

If you look at the FAC (I've finished there now, so I think it is OK to point to it), this all started from my post at 22:12, 21 October 2011, where I said "I also have some figures on word counts and (now I've been taking a closer look) some nascent concerns about similarities in wording and structure between this article and [one of the sources]. Would you be willing to discuss that on the article talk page rather than here?" The nominator responded by opening a section on the article talk page with results from their use of a duplication detector tool, which I was actually a bit taken aback by, but I thought 'fair enough, I'll point out examples for discussion', and then spent the next hour or so pulling together the examples I posted.

When posting those examples, I edit conflicted with the 00:33, 22 October 2011 post and after reloading the page and posting those examples at 01:11, I posted a reply at 01:15 to the post I'd edit conflicted with. It was actually in the 00:33 post that the terms 'close paraphrasing' and 'plagarism' (sic) were used for the first time (by the nominator, not me). With hindsight, I should have said something then, making clearer that (as I said in my 01:11 post) that my view was that 'the wording and also the sentence structure of this article does need to move away from that used by [the source]'. This wasn't intended to be an oblique reference, but rather a way of broaching the subject in a non-inflammatory fashion.

What I didn't expect was the 'call a spade a spade and stop pussy-footing around and say what you mean' (I'm paraphrasing there) response from Malleus (though he did have a point). What I've learnt from this is that no matter how you raise a subject like this, some people will get offended, and that it may be better to post just a single example first and let discussion evolve from there (rather than post a whole lot of examples). Anyway, sorry for posting such a long account, but I needed to get that off my chest. I also didn't want to post at Malleus's talk page again, but it would be good if he and others saw this at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed.

Such discussions are helpful so that we may learn how to avoid old mistakes, and get on with making new mistakes.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad my comments were helpful. I don't like to see editors I greatly respect at odds with each other. If I may add a couple of further observations...

First, note that Malleus and Ealdgyth are good wiki-friends: we can often be more robust defending our friends than ourselves (perhaps because it is a more selfless, hence noble, cause). Secondly, you cannot ignore the elephant in the room. No matter how tactfully you phrase prose concerns to avoid mentioning the dreaded "P" word, the Pachyderm will still be there. There is no "Pussy-footing" around it: Paraphrasing sources is what we do in an encyclopedia, and if there is only one source for some particular material, editors' options are limited from the get-go.

Malleus and others have in recent months been engaged with an editor who seems so devoted to crafting words into inoffensive paragraphs that the essays this editor writes are a bizarre mixture of the incomprehensible and the content-free. That may (alas) be the ideal paradigm for Wikipedia, but if I start to make comments of the form "The sourcing and prose involve a commonality which suggests that opportunities for further distancing could be contemplated by editors and taken forwards if sourcing and policy supports proceeding towards such a distancing approach", then please have my wiki-life humanely and gently put down :) Geometry guy 23:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

As usual you make a good point. Several in fact. It has seemed to me that over the past few weeks and months it's just been one editor after another complaining that unless their favourite trivia is added to whichever article then it's a pile of stinking dog shit. It may well be that in my defence of Ealdgyth (as you say, it's sometimes easier to rise to the defence of friends than ourselves) that I was a little too robust, for which I apologise to Carcharoth. I recognise that Carcharoth has only the best of intentions, and I hope that perhaps in the future we may be able to work together in a less confrontational environment. Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) My gods. Where did that phrase come from GG? I missed it, or did see it and totally blocked it from my mind in self-defense. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope to God it was original parody. If it wasn't, please don't embarrass the perpetrator by identifying them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The parody was entirely my own invention. based loosely on the style of a nameless editor, who is most certainly not among the present company ;) Geometry guy 00:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Only just spotted this, and wanted to thanks Malleus for the apology, which I gladly accept. For my part, I apologise for not taking a more tactful approach, and I look forward to working with both Malleus and Ealdgyth at some point in the future. I will also try to make my reviews less draining, though if a subject is interesting I do tend to get sucked into reading all about it and wanting to muck in there, rather than maintaining a respectful distance (this would be clambering onto a work of art in a museum and/or scribbling notes on it, rather than conferring in hushed tones with other visitors about how nice the exhibit looks). Hmm, I wonder how far that analogy can be taken before it breaks? Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's already getting a bit creepy, so I'd leave it there. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

nom nom nom

Thank you for the stroopwaffles. The virtual ones are so great because they are of course sugar free. Things are stressed in real life at the moment - I work for an English local authority, and we are shedding about 1/3 of our staff, and there's lots of stuff around that, and last week was a bit of a nightmare. I edit Wikipedia to get away from that, but if you think it's spilling over, perhaps I ought to back off a bit and stick to rescuing genuine articles from the clutches of new page patrollers who don't understand what A7 actually says.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's all about notability, right? :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Right! <Elen's comment copied over to User talk:Elen of the Roads with reply there> Geometry guy 22:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

[3] Sadly. Just thought you might like to be aware. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sadly indeed. Worm^TT noted the flaws of the RfC. More bluntly, it was a mess. It was not anyone's finest hour, but in particular, it was not KW's, nor yours, nor Demiurge's. This was an RfC which became an ugly battleground, painted black and white, where enemy's friends and friend's enemies were enemies, and enemy's enemies were friends. The conflict resulted in knee-jerk responses, where editors did not always consider the wisdom of their posts before posting them. Why you all seek to draw further community attention to such a low point in your edit histories baffles me. In your position (and I'm not an innocent here), I would be quietly and privately ashamed, and seek to learn from the experience to move on and be a better editor. As volunteers, editing Wikipedia is our leisure time, so it should be enjoyable and rewarding, shouldn't it? Geometry guy 21:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thankfully, the ANI thread has been closed, and I support that. For information, I was about to post the following in response to this comment:

Elen, please do not presume to understand what I may think or not think about these userboxes. I formed my own opinion when I studied them several weeks ago. However, I did not publish my analysis or opinion onwiki. Instead, I noted the plethora of userboxes I found and left it at that. I did not discuss further whether the boxes were random or not, as it is a stupid discussion: editors select userboxes, and Lihaas has selected a wide range. That selection does not "neatly position him between the British National Party and the English Defence League" and this illustrates why it is inappropriate to discuss another editor's politics onwiki. It was a mistake that I am willing to forgive as it took place in the heat of the moment, but it was inappropriate nonetheless. Geometry guy 22:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right - you have not actually taken the position that you continue to be portrayed as taking by KW [4]. Unlike you, I do not believe it is unreasonable to comment on the information that an editor puts on their userpage - after all, one presumes they put it on there because they want us to know that they are a US Marine, or a Welshman, or a cat lover. And like Hans Adler [5], I think it not unreasonable to conclude that the user is telling us that these are the politics he espouses. I am not making any comment about Lihaas here - the man is entitled to hold whatever political opinions he likes. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And so it is. Let us enjoy all that is good about Wikipedia. Geometry guy 00:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

2 community reassessments have been requested

I've requested community reassessments for Warcraft II and Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares. --Philcha (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

In the latter case, you haven't yet done so. However, I do not understand how you think community GAR can resolve issues from over a year ago, some of which you seem to have misremembered or confused. The articles need to be renominated at GAN. Geometry guy 23:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

your comments at my talkpage

Hi - please stop posting at my talkpage - I have deleted a couple already, your posts don't seems beneficial to constructive discussion - thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

In what sense? I was asking another editor for information. Why is that not beneficial to constructive discussion? Geometry guy 23:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback.

Hi Geometry guy, you have a reply at my talk. RFA Guy (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Replied there, thanks. Geometry guy 20:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Geometry guy, I do not want any problems. If there is anything I can apologize for, I do now. RFA Guy (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You are doing fine. I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia with a username, and the many conversations that will follow. It can be frustrating sometimes, but it can also be very rewarding. Geometry guy 21:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. RFA Guy (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Template question

Hi -- do you have a minute to take a look at a template for me? I was trying to collapse the huge navbox at the bottom of Missouri Democratic Party, but can't seem to make it work. Am I doing something dumb, or is this actually broken? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The template was not passing on the "state" parameter. I fixed it, I think. Let me know if not. Otherwise, check my edit to the template and see if you can make sense of why it worked. Geometry guy 21:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's clear. I do so little with templates that I fail to see the obvious fixes. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I don't do such much with templates myself these days. Geometry guy 22:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)