User talk:Geometry guy

Welcome to my (rather minimalist) user and user talk page: please leave comments, questions, complaints, or just general chat below. I can't promise to reply, but if I do I will reply here: if I take a while I will drop a note on your talk page. Please provide direct links to issues you raise. I like to help out and have experience with templates, but my wikitime is limited. I have access to admin tools, but I don't generally use them to deal with vandalism or editor conduct (although I am willing to help with both of these issues sans tools).

The editors I most admire are those who read and think before they write or conclude. I try to follow their example: if I seem to have jumped to a premature conclusion, please drop me a note on this talk page. "Official" abbreviations of my username include G'guy, G-guy, Gguy and G guy.

NIF images

Sorry, off to Ottawa, just getting back. Can you help me with the images in NIF? I'll do the work if you can give me some specific pointers. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure: step one is to fix the copyright notices/licensing information for the images, here or on commons, according to where the image is stored. Do you have a commons account? Geometry guy 00:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I do. Have these been moved to the Commons? (I find it oddly difficult to know). Just some or all? If it's a subset, perhaps that's the first place to start, deciding on a single location? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some are on commons, some not: scroll down from the image for the "commons" banner (or check at the top whether the file is redlinked). It may be best to start with the articles on Wikipedia, as there is always a danger that when you label an image as copyrighted, someone will delete it: such images are only allowed if they are being used in an article under the "fair use" provision. This relates to the second step, which is to provide fair use rationales on the image pages. Geometry guy 00:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I have made a first attempt with File:NIF beamline diagram.png. Geometry guy 00:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Linear transformation

I believe you jumped the gun on changing the page title to "Linear map". The most commonly recognized name is "linear transformation" and this is the most distinctive name. The name "map" means all kinds of things; "transformation" is not used for nearly as many things, in fact, hardly any. See further remarks on Talk:Linear map. Zaslav (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You are entitled to your beliefs. In mathematics, "map" nearly always means some sort of function, and with a prefix such as "linear" or "continuous" there is no ambiguity whatsoever. The use of "transformation" as a synonym for "function" or "map" is slowly dying out, as the word is long and prone to misuse. Geometry guy 15:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me how you know all that! I don't see it in my experience. (Just one example: The word "map" is often used in a specialized meaning without any distinguishing adjective.) Thank you for your expected explanation. Zaslav (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "map" is used in graph theory in a different sense. I don't discuss my credentials as part of an argument, even though I am a professional mathematician with plenty of teaching experience (including linear algebra). Anything which any editor says can be considered as just an opinion until they supply reliable secondary sources to back it up. Geometry guy 18:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Roosevelt Blue Plaque

I would like to rectify a possible misunderstanding here. The Malvern GA was reviewed by a very strict but extremely fair reviewer - which is the way it should be. Other admins, not you, however have expressed what appears to be a view that the article may eventually not have been entirely correctly passed, but I would stress that I have no intentions, at least for a long time, of preparing the article for FA. If other members of the project wish to do so much sooner, that is of course fine, but I will probably not participate. I do however remember you saying that you would be prepared to go to Malvern on an investigative excursion, so I assume you are near the area. Any help you can give therefore would be most appreciated, and you do not have to be a specialist in UK geography. Although some Wikipedians insist that editors should only work on articles about the countries they live in, the opposite seems to reflect the current facts.we are mainly, a Malvern physicist who lives and works in Switzerland, a retired linguist/educationalist from Malvern who lives and works most of the time in Thailand, and a former Malvern RRE scientist from the 1950s who lives in America. You are not a member of the WP:WORCS project, but if you hail from, or live in the area and intend to become involve with the entire suite of Malvern articles, I would like to extend the invitation for you to consider joining it. However, going to the Malvern Museum on behalf of Wikipedia might not add much to the article as it stands. If the museum has the original letter, Brian is a very kind and helpfull fellow, a family friend for 30 years, and I'm hoping he will send us a scan or a photo of it. I'm as curious as you are to see what he comes up with. I will be in Malvern in April. --Kudpung (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware of any misunderstandings. If I believed the article deviated significantly from the GA criteria, I would have opened a reassessment, and this has nothing to do with me being an admin: any Wikipedian can do that. Instead I decided to help spruce the article up a bit. I have no intention to bring the article to FA, but if others wish to do so, then I am likely willing to help.

I don't have any personal connection with Malvern (beyond being English and living in the UK!), nor do I live particularly close, but I have never visited the town, and I think it would make a pleasant excursion!

Insisting that Wikipedians only work on articles about countries they live in is daft! This is a volunteer project and everyone is free to work on whatever interests them! Personally, I quite like contributing to topics I know very little about because (1) I learn something, and (2) I have to rely upon RSS in my contributions, which I think is good for the article. However I also work on topics where I am an expert.

I hope your kind friends in Malvern will not consider it rude that Michael and myself have been asking questions about the letter: this is now curiosity driven as much as anything else! It is a pity that Aldwyn Tower is no longer a hotel, as that greatly diminishes the chances of there being something like a guestbook which might pin down precisely when FDR was there. Geometry guy 18:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's probably best to wait and see what Brian comes up with. He's an archivist, and an author of books on the history of Malvern, and if he can provide a copy of the letter, that's all we need to know. I don't think there's much to be gained in bombarding him with mail from all of us - he has the diffs, and he can follow the talk page if he wishes. Aldwyn Tower has not been a hotel for a very long time, not, I believe, in my lifetime (61 years) so it's highly unlikely that any records are extant. Kudpung (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood: I was not proposing to ask more questions or send any emails. I have rephrased my comment above for clarity. I agree we should wait and see what he can find - and then ask whether it is all we need/would like to know :) Geometry guy 19:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I had of course misunderstood, and please accept my apologies. If you are really keen on a visit to Malvern, you could wait until April when I get home to Barnards Green for a few weeks, and I could show you around. You'll also meet someone who is the very opposite of a child hater! Malvern has a fine 11th C. priory church, some of the best food in the county, and still plenty more to dig up for Wikipedia Malvern articles. Regards, Kudpung (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a kind invitation: we can discuss it by email; I hope I will not be too busy to make a short visit while you are there. Geometry guy 21:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible PR fix?

Hi Geometry guy, thanks for updating the PR archive and page. I have noticed that occasionally there are PRs which have no PR template on the article talk page. This happened recently on a PR Finetooth opened and when I asked him about it, this is what he said.

It's possible to install (but not save) the PR template on an article talk page, to view it in preview mode, and to click through and fill in the rest of the form without remembering to save on the article talk page. I think that's what I must have done, and I think that's the process that accounts for similar glitches that we see from time-to-time at PR. This is a form of operator error rather than a flaw in the template design, but maybe a guru could make a doofus-proof template that would not work unless saved first.

Does this seem like anything that could be done for {{PR}}? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

PS I also posted this on CBM's talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've seen the consequences of this mistake myself a few times. CBM has a clever idea to use the difference between the time of the last revision to the talk page and the current time to ensure the PR template is saved before it is used. I don't have a better idea than that. Geometry guy 21:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Geo guy! I'm not sending out thankspam, but I would like to personally thank you for your support and for the kind words. What I learned on this RfA will also go towards continuing to mentor others, especially the younger editors, and participating in the campaign to make RfA a more appealing prospect for users who also need the tools, but who are too afraid to come forward. I trust that you will allow me to poach on your experience from time to time, and I look forward to working together with you as a fellow admin, and perhaps meeting up with you in Malvern when I get over to the UK. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship, and many thanks for your personal message. I also look forward to working with you and hope that appointments of good admins will encourage better practice. You are more than welcome to consult me on any issue, bearing in mind that my experience varies considerably depending on the issue! Geometry guy 00:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

GA - David Yates (March 2011)

Hello. The article David Yates was nominated for Good Article status back in January, but was delisted. I know you contributed to it, so I just wanted to say that I have worked on the article extensively and I think I have resolved the problems that stopped the article for achieving GA status. The reference formatting was an issue as well as the balance, but both have been improved considerably. I have nominated the article for GA status again and User:Betty Logan has agreed to peer review it either today or tomorrow, but she will not carry out a full review due to her being a tad unfamiliar with the criteria. Would it be possible for you to conduct a full review, as I am desperate to get it into GA status? The article is nominated under the Theatre, Film and Drama section. If you can help, I very much appreciate it. If you can't, no worries. Thanks. :) Hallows Horcruxes 17:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If Betty Logan can provide detailed peer review comments on the GAN review page, then I am willing to act as "lead reviewer" and make the final assessment as to whether the article meets the criteria. Please let me know, and I will start the review page. Geometry guy 18:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

She said she will do that. Thank you for helping. Hallows Horcruxes 19:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Great. I've started the review page: I'll fill in the table when I get time and as the peer review progresses. Geometry guy 19:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Daytona International Speedway

I just read your comment on the GAR's talk page. Now while I wanted the reassessment to be closed earlier, its still good to have it closed. Thanks. GamerPro64 (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome, and thank you for raising the reassessment and thus helping to maintain the integrity of GA article quality. Any uninvolved editor can close a reassessment (much like an AfD), but it seems that if I don't do it, it often doesn't get done! Geometry guy 18:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever thought of establishing yourself as the director of Good Article reassessments or something along the lines? GamerPro64 (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have thought about whether GA or GAR should have a director or directors, but have generally rejected the idea for several related reasons. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but a volunteer project: we all work on things which interest us and the remuneration is lousy :). With no disrespect to those who have titled roles (who are typically exemplary Wikipedians IMO), such titles are not for me in the spirit of Wikipedia. "Authority" has two distinct meanings: it is the meaning connected to expertise, rather than status, that I think matters here. We value other editors for the quality of their contributions, and turn to them for advice and other input because they have proven to be helpful or have valuable experience.

I have taken a long term interest in the stability, reliability and integrity of GA. It is that interest that underpins my involvement at GAR, in that when a nominator or reviewer has a bad experience, or something goes wrong, I want to sort it out. I would rather encourage others to do likewise. Geometry guy 18:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As the glorious leader grand doyen of the GA WikiProject, Gguy is as always being modest :) It's an interesting point though. Giving someone a title is often a simple way of getting them to commit to a role; normally the sort of janitorial work that otherwise probably wouldn't get done (or would fall to a very few committed and proactive individuals). I'm willing to bet that if the project did use titles like 'GAR coordinator' there would be a wider pool of active closers. EyeSerene^talk 11:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Darn, EyeSerene saw through my unwillingness to commit to endless janatorial work! :) Fortunately, subsequent to comments made here, Wizardman and SilkTork have been closing some GAR discussions. They are excellent "GAR coordinators" in every sense, including EyeSerene's, and I hope that many more editors will discover that it is actually quite fun to contribute at GAR, because all sorts of interesting articles appear there. Geometry guy 23:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to confess that I don't have GAR in my regular scope. Sometimes I turn up there because in my wanderings I note an article is being reassessed, and will look at that particular GAR, and then at others on the GAR page, adding comments or closing the GAR if applicable. I don't generally pay it much mind as I have the sense that GAR is being looked after by Gguy, and so is in capable hands. There are other areas around Wiki where one or more individuals are active and take responsibility (with or without titles) and that is as it should be. Like Gguy I am slightly against the notion of formalising that process if there is no need. If GAR was in need of more organisation or attention and nobody was stepping forward to do the work, then having some form of formal position in which somebody was encouraged into the role would be appropriate. I will look into passing by once a month or so to see how things are going, just in order to help out now and again. Meanwhile, I think many of us already regard Gguy as the person most responsible within the GA project, and as the voice (and ethos) of the project. He has the unseen title of Director of Good Articles, but more important than that he has the respect of people who are aware of what he does. Let's get on with improving the 'pedia and leave formal titles and positions out of it unless needed. The bureaucracy involved in setting up a formal position, and having annual elections, etc, is more than it is worth. Gguy is our go-to guy for as long as he is willing, and everyone is encouraged to get involved in all aspects of the GA project in the true open spirit of Wikipedia. SilkTork *^YES! 09:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Gguy and others have done a superb job in keeping GA egalitarian and remarkably free from bureaucracy; the project is very fortunate in the calibre of its membership. To my mind the main argument for having formal positions is to ensure continuity of function, and as you say while continuity is provided by the gentle encouragement and example of people like Gguy there's no need for titles. EyeSerene^talk 11:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The Incredible Melting Man

Just wanted to let you know I've made some changes to The Incredible Melting Man and responded to your comments at the GAR page. Please take a look and shoot me a response at your earliest convenience. Thanks very much! — Hunter Kahn 06:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, and thanks again for your very helpful comments! — Hunter Kahn 19:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:St Mary's Church, Astbury/GA1

There's a small problem with the GA review of St Mary's Church, Astbury. I made some edits to the article, left some comments for some more minor edits to be done (build the lead and clarify some technical terms), and put it on hold. The nominator and main contributor reverted my edits and has asked me to fail the review as he is not happy with me editing the article. I have tried to enter into discussion, but he appears unwilling. It may be a case that someone else coming in and taking over would ease the problem. The work needed to be done is quite small, and I (well, anyone) could do it in less than 30 minutes. Seems odd to fail under those circumstances, but also seems inappropriate to make somebody unhappy, especially as they have been fairly productive so far. What do you think? Would you be willing to take it over. or shall I ask someone else? Or just for a general second opinion? SilkTork *^YES! 18:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I will take a look this weekend, if it is not too late. Geometry guy 23:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. SilkTork *^YES! 09:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Chair

File:Gold Medal 2018 Classic Directors Chair.jpg

Supreme Director of Good Articles

I hereby award Geometry guy the chair of Supreme Director of Good Articles. I hope you find it comfy. (I got it from Marks & Sparks, so if you don't like the colour you can always get it changed). SilkTork *^YES! 09:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

:D EyeSerene^talk 11:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Lol! Thanks guys for your kind words here and above. You made me laugh and smile - which is pretty good going after the day I've had IRL! I shall be adding the initials SDoGAbGAhnSDsTiJaJ to my signature henceforth, obviously ;). In return, and in the generous spirit of GA :), may I cordially invite either or both of you (or any TPS) to take a look at Lolicon? This article improved both during and after an individual delist and it is possible that it now meets the criteria, as some article editors assert at the ongoing community reassessment. Geometry guy_{SDoGAbGAhnSDsTiJaJ} 21:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Um... "Supreme Director of Good Articles but GA has no Supreme Directors so This is Just a Joke"? Re the other, I'll try to take a look but I can't promise anything (my employers quite unreasonably expect me to produce some work occasionally in return for my salary). EyeSerene^talk 14:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

How the blazes did you deduce that, Holmes? _{Hmmm... maybe I should have left it all caps to keep you guessing longer!} I won't elaborate further on the associated in-joke ;)

SilkTork kindly provided excellent review comments on Lolicon, which sufficed to close the reassessment. Thanks to you both for your help and offers of help. Geometry guy 20:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 Update

Hi,

You questioned what can be done. I would point you to read a lot of the last year brainstorming session discussions like strategy:Task force/Wikipedia Quality strategy:Task force/Reader Conversion strategy:Task force/Community Health and the strategy:Wikimedia Movement Strategic Plan Summary the Foundation very own conclusions over those discussions.

Things will only get really serious when it will be about time to implement "ideas" in each respective wikis as we will need every contributors to give a good push against inherent communities inertia and conservatism.

--KrebMarkt (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I don't hold out much hope making progress against community inertia on en-wiki: it takes years! Consider for example, issues such as the GA symbol (introduced after years of acrimonious debate), and the ongoing discussions about Pending Changes. I've given up trying to reform the confusingly entangled WikiProject and community assessments: there is too much inertia in the system. I just politely point out, when appropriate, that "It's barely C-Class according to WikiProject Mongolian Graphic Literature" is not, on its own, an argument that an article does not meet the GA criteria. Geometry guy 21:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Having been part of the previous discussions, i have a sort "déjà vu" feeling with the current ones. Discussions is always easy, putting in practice the results of those discussions is hard. It took one year for the Foundation to make something of the previous round of discussions. --KrebMarkt (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK hook

Sorry I pipped you to the post with the DYK hook! I should have said last night that you can always suggest an ALT hook, but I guess I was a bit tired. Anyway the hook's already been "approved" with the comment "An interesting hook", so maybe I can do something right! I repeat my thanks for your input into the impasse, and will do a bit of work on the article, I hope, later today. Best wishes. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries. My hook would have been much the same, so it would be silly to provide an alternative. I'm glad the DYK was accepted so readily and positively. Geometry guy 21:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

MHP: Elen's request for alternative wording

Hi GG!

Elen twice asked for suggestions for alternative wording.

I proposed an alternative on the WP project mathematics talk page. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 15:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Organizing academics is often described as "herding cats", an experience which can be very frustrating to others. So I have simply proposed an alternative wording at the Workshop: criticism is welcome, as it may not be ideal from multiple perspectives, but I think it improves upon the principle receiving current support. Geometry guy 21:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've responded on the workshop page, and come up with this. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Elen, for responding positively like this, despite the many things going on right now! I can't promise it will make everyone happy, but apart from the redlink (which will soon be fixed I'm sure!) your revised version looks much better to me. In particular, the new version takes on board the point that the main danger of synthesis is an unsourced conclusion, rather than an unsourced derivation (this does not imply that unsourced derivations are approved!). Also quoting policy, rather than paraphrasing it, is a good idea.

I hope both mathematics editors and arbitrators will appreciate the merits of this version. Geometry guy 23:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Herding cats, indeed!

An intellectual/political figure described a political organization as being like "the French—a nation of anarchists that want to be told what to do!"; c.f. "The Anarchists' Convention" by John Sayles.

The text is a big improvement.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 09:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I will continue to encourage better wording if I can. I was deeply depressed on Monday (14th), thinking that my flawed comments would make no difference, and that Wikipedia was heading towards becoming a dumbed-down repository. I got involved in this encyclopedia because of its aspirations to freely document the "sum of human knowledge". Yet I find myself increasingly spending more time arguing for the ideal than contributing to it. I am not happy about that. Geometry guy 23:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you guys all for your help on this. I'm sure we can work it out if not to everyone's complete satisfaction, at least so it doesn't cause massive unintended consequences.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My instinctive feeling as a Wikipedian (rather than as a mathematician) is to try to say less rather than more, Arbcom does not need to rule on everything, as long as it provides sufficient support for its resolution of the dispute. Geometry guy 00:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the key thing Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Just wanted to make sure you saw this post I made on Amadscientist's talk page. No need for you to comment or anything, I just try to give people a heads up when I make a comment on somebody else's talk page that mentions them. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 02:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting - I got distracted from my read-through by several other things, but will return to the article now. Geometry guy 20:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• That would certainly be appreciated! I don't mean to be a pest, especially since you've already been helpful in your comments, but I think the article is very nearly ready for GA and am eager to do what it takes to get it there. — Hunter Kahn 21:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

St Mary's Church, Astbury

Well, it made it, largely thanks to your intervention. Also thanks for the latest edits. Just a question on style. I note that you have changed Gomme's comments to the present tense, even though he is dead. I have never been clear on the convention about this. It worries me when I say "Pevsner says", and even more "Ormerod says" (Ormerod was a Cheshire historian who died in 1873). When should I use the present tense, and do we ever use the past? Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a common literary convention to always use the present tense, based I suppose on the fact that it's still what he says through his writing and the writing is not a corpse. In fact it's sometimes called the "literary present tense". This is a good, straightforward explanation. Malleus Fatuorum 13:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A closely related term is the "narrative present", which we use to write plot summaries because we are summarizing the experience of reading the book or watching the film.

Wikipedia articles should be written in the present of the reader, something which I have started referring to as the "encyclopedic present". Ironically, this typically means using the simple past tense, since most articles discuss things that happened before the time of reading! The most common tense mistakes I find at GA involve writing "in the moment", i.e., from the perspective of the time: "he would later receive an Oscar" is a typical example; it should be "he later received an Oscar". Writing "in the moment" is common in journalism, but is inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

I thus share your hesitation about using the present tense in attributions, but have a couple of suggestions which may help. First, ask the question "Is it relevant to the discussion/article when this material was written?" It might be: the views being attributed may reflect the views of the time; there may be later views or refutations, or the author may have changed their mind. Conversely, if you write "Gomme suggested..." instead of "Gomme suggests...", it draws attention to the time of writing, and may even cast doubt upon the currency of the information. Secondly, phrases such as "Pevsner states..." or "Gomme suggests..." are typically shorthand for something like "The cited book by Pevsner states..." or "Gomme's work suggests..." The attribution is there to ensure readers know that the view is a notable opinion. Wikipedia itself should neither endorse nor cast doubt upon such opinions. Geometry guy 18:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful too. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome! Geometry guy 20:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

turtle farming to GA

What would it take to take this article to GA? I'm not so concerned with the hacking out prose and format, but with content. Any thoughts on what is needed for an "industry overview"? Or models of GAs that are?

I was thinking some more overall market sizing and segmentation, and then some on methods. Maybe a bit more on pricing or other aspects of the economics.

TCO (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The most obvious immediate issue to me is WP:LEAD. You need to elaborate the story (which you summarize in the lead) in the body of the article, "Show don't tell" is an excellent principle in my view, and your comments about the market should flow easily into the article if you apply that principle. Geometry guy 22:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sources

Hi Geometry guy, I know you have thought carefully about the nuances distinguishing primary and secondary sources in a scientific context in the past. There is a discussion underway at WT:OR on how best to treat these nuances in our policy. It defies an easy answer, because of the differences in sources between different disciplines, and I think the discussion would benefit from your insight. Thank you, Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Andor Harvey Gomme

Thanks for the article Victuallers (talk) 08:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Nearly made the 5K, but not quite. A pity. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Collapsible comments template question

Hi -- if you have time, would you mind taking a look at the note I just posted at WT:FAC? There's a question there for a template expert, and I know you are expert in that area. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- that was crystal clear and extremely helpful. A different question: I followed the MediaWiki link and voted for that bug; do you think it would be sensible to suggest that others who see this as a problem also do the same? I don't know anything about the culture of MediaWiki, and if canvassing for bug votes is regarded as poorly as canvassing for RfAs is here then I'd rather not suggest it. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't either, but it is likely to be a culture of trying to maximize the utility of limited resources. Carl may have a better idea. Greater awareness that template limits issues affect content review processes (including FAC, upon which substantial main page content is based) may carry more weight than numbers of votes. Geometry guy 00:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I happened to see this on my watchlist. I can't speak for the developers, but my sense is that (1) they generally feel like the template limits are quite high, so that even if the limits are being cut in half they are still adequate for typical articles and (2) because there are so many things to do, (1) makes this sort of bug a low priority.

To make things worse, the problem is with the parser code in Mediawiki, which is particularly complex and which has to be extremely efficient. If more people voted on the bug, that might help, but to make the voting more compelling it would be nice for someone to compile a list of the pages that are being affected.

What would help more is for someone to have both the time and expertise to submit a code patch that fixes the problem. I might be able to try that this summer, but I won't have time to do it before June, and I don't know if I would even be able to fix it then. My memory is that I researched this problem in source code in detail once, and I didn't see any simple fix. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The Incredible Melting Man

Just so you know, Amadscientist (talk · contribs) has declined to participate any further in the The Incredible Melting Man GAR or review comments that have already been made. — Hunter Kahn 20:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The Objective of Netball? Your comments to Laura Hale

<See User talk:Mrs_muffet#Netball (Geometry guy's comments)>

Regarding withdrawing GAs

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 (UTC)

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)