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 use them to deal with vandalism or editor conduct.

Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

"Official" abbreviations of my username include G'guy and G-guy. I promise I will only be mildly irritated by other approximations :-)

1000This user has made almost 1000 deleted contributions to Wikipedia.

Vector spaces

Bonjour,

after getting some rest I thought it would be nice to rework vector spaces. You seemed willing to help with some copyedit; I recently did one of the whole article except the lead. If you are up to it, we can perhaps bring it to a better prose-style. I have to say, though, that my English isn't fine enough to spot more or less subtle errors in language registers etc., but I'm surely willing to learn... Also, I'm not sure yet whether I wanna bring it back to another FAC.

Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hej! Yes, I'm happy to do that, maybe this weekend. Copyediting is not just about language, but conciseness, encyclopedic style etc. I am not brilliant at it, but I'll try to help out. Geometry guy 22:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request

Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Obesity GAN review

Another editor recommended that you would be the one to approach wrt a GA review. I have some concerns regarding the reviewer of obesity.

I have added the lines "

Main article: Exercise trends

A sedentary lifestyle plays a significant role in obesity. Worldwide there has been a large shift towards less physically demanding work. This has been accompanied by increasing use of mechanized transportation, a greater prevalence of labor saving technology in the home, and less active recreational pursuits."

Narayanese who is doing the GA review however does not accept the WHO as a sufficient reference. I have added evidence supporting their statement at the page exercise trends.

Maybe the last bit is about leisure presuits is controversial but I do not see any problems with the rest of it. If I would to put all the evidence together and than make this statement that would be WP:SYTH. Would appreciate your opinion. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I can only offer my own opinions here (or perhaps on the article talk page if I have concrete suggestions for improving the article). You can ask for other opinions at WP:GAN. However, it might be better to let the review run its course, and take the article to reassessment if you believe the review was inadequate. Returning to my own opinions, I don't see any obvious problems with the Exercise trends section or the sources used. However, the main issue which jumps out at me is the length of the article. This should not be a subject where 125 KB are needed to elaborate it. You have made good use of summary style. I suggest using it more, and making the precis in the article more concise if you can. Geometry guy 22:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Will try to split off more. It is a very controversial and broad topic as you will see if you read the whole thing.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your edits on jimmy wales page.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

No problem and thanks for commenting here. I encourage you to contribute to the GA reassessment of the article. Geometry guy 20:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Dispatch help

Hey, G guy ... can you have a peek at Wikipedia:FCDW/FTShip when you have time? I'm unclear if it's accurate on GA and GT history, and it needs a lot of work. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look accurate about GA to me, but once a lie has been told sufficiently many times it becomes the truth. The discussion of GA also digresses from the main topic. I don't wish to become a coauthor of such a dispatch, but I'm willing to help to remove and refocus inaccuracies and digressions. Geometry guy 19:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought: a lot of it just needs plain old deleting, with some moving around. I'm trying to get through FAC; would you mind doing it? It's not only inaccurate, a lot is off-topic and repetitive and unnecessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There was only one paragraph on GA, so I wouldn't be able to do much with minor tweaks. I've proposed instead a radical restructuring. I did it on a user subpage, but since Maralia noted the same issue, I've transferred it. Maybe it will be reverted. Geometry guy 21:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've now unwatchlisted the article so that it doesn't waste any more of my time. I hope my contribution was helpful. Geometry guy 23:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Between the two of you, I think it looks good now ... hope you're happy with the result (it needed help). Thanks !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It is, at the very least, no worse. As stated above, I do not wish to be connected in any way with the authorship of the article, which now does not mention GA or its history at all (fine by me). You might want to contact TomStar. Geometry guy 23:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Review of GA status

A while back you reviewed the article Homosexual transsexual for good article criteria. Since then all of the issues you raised have been addressed IMHO. As a courtesy I am letting you know it has been listed for review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Homosexual transsexual/2. Thankyou.--Hfarmer (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Still keeping an eye on WT:AWG

hi,

Things eventually got started on A Class discussion. I hope you are keeping on how things are evolving. That's quite interesting in numbers and diversity of the inputs. We may Really get something out of it. Wilkerma saved the day or so ;) --KrebMarkt 07:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I re-added it to my watchlist not long before you commented here. I will contribute if/when I can. In the meantime, I hope you, Walkerma, and others know my views. Geometry guy 21:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

My date of birth

Thanks so much for your remarks over on Talk:Jimmy Wales. I added a response there, and I'm also making some edits (in a moment) to: Talk:Jimmy Wales/Birthdate.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this — your analysis of the evidence more or less lines up with mine :)

I will comment further there later today and see if I can move the article away from in-house trivia, unreliable sources and OR. Geometry guy 10:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Mervyn Emrys

Hi, I'm not anti-Mervyn Emrys per se and I have not had any personal dealings with him. Having read a violent diatribe against the decision of a GAN reviewer (who might have made a "wrong" decision) I don't see why unacceptable force from the nominator should overturn the system, without proper considered and quiet refection.Pyrotec (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither am I, but I agree he has been disruptive, and I am aware of similar disruption in the past. I am not defending him. The GAN review was perfectly correct. Let it rest so, rather than stir it up any more. Geometry guy 00:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I got your message after I had posted the one above; and then we edit conflicted on this page. The short answer is no my contribution will not help solve what Mervyn Emrys sees as the problem. I will take it out.Pyrotec (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. It is his problem, not ours: he can learn to deal with GA or ignore it. Geometry guy 00:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

hello

I am sorry we had that dust up. I have a great deal of respect for you—the way you handle situations. I trust your judgment most of all. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mattisse and thanks for your kind remarks. That is water long under the bridge as far as I am concerned: disagreements like that are inevitable on Wikipedia and I never regard them as grounds for enmity. Please don't trust me too much, though; I am fallible like anyone else :) Geometry guy 09:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Live with it, or leave it

• Live with it, or leave it Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

  Quantum mechanics also has superpositions of states. Geometry guy 22:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm happy to look at those articles, but just on the face of it, I don't understand their connection to my little monologue... unless you referring to this: "...quantum mechanics allows the counterintuitive phenomenon that sometimes when there are more ways for a thing to happen, the chance that it happens goes down." Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

  It was simply a joke: in quantum theory there are mixed states in which (e.g.) a particle is neither spinning to the left or to the right. A hadron state might be neither a proton nor a neutron, but a mixture. And you or I might be in a superposition of states, one being "live with it", the other being "leave it". In such a state, neither or both is true.

  Sadly, both of us are probably too large (all human beings are) for quantum effects to be significant, and also, the linked Wikipedia articles are not very good. Geometry guy 23:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

So who's going to write "Schrodinger's editor"? --Philcha (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And whom should we use as a paradigm? :-) --Philcha (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can't tell whether a user is vandalising or not until we check their edits, so I guess we all exist in a superimposed vandal/non-vandal waveform that's collapsed by a visit to ANI (and on a kind-of related matter, if we're reviewing an article we can't determine how it will develop; but if we're the ones developing the article we can't predict how its review will turn out). ...maybe stretching things on that last one :P EyeSerene^talk 00:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC regarding WP:TERRORIST

Hi: You're probably watching the WT:WTA talk page, but if not, I wanted to let you know I've set up an RFC to get some outside discussion there, and to encourage slightly more formal statements than our more freewheeling discussion thus far. Ray^Talk 17:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive my bluntness, but that was a stupid thing to do, IMO. Constructive discussion was taking place thanks to the input of a new editor. Now everyone is retreating to entrenched positions. Geometry guy 19:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It may very well have been. If so, a lesson of sorts for me, and my apologies for the fallout. Ray^Talk 20:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize. There's usually something good that can be drawn out of any situation. Geometry guy 20:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Origin of Species

Hi, G-Guy, I'd like to ask a big favour. I'm GA-reviewing Origin of Species and have a strong feeling about 1 aspect. I'd be grateful if you could look over the article - not in detail, just your general impression. Please don't look at the GA review page first, I'd like your spontaneous and unbiassed opinion. If you comment, please do so at the review page. All the best, --Philcha (talk) 08:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

God, and I thought I was a tough reviewer! However I do think they've conserved too much of the article as it was 2 years ago, and need to do some re-thinking. Many thanks for your help, I hope you've kept count of the favours I owe you and remember to call them in. --Philcha (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but could you please give at the GA review page a few examples of the "non-neutral prose" you mentioned. Perhaps dave and Rusty have got so immersed in the article that they see what they expect to see, etc. - a trap I sometimes fall into.--Philcha (talk)

I'm not as tough a reviewer as it seems. The article is very close to GA, but will struggle to go further without getting to grips with the problems I mentioned. I am, of course, watchlisting the review, and have noticed the request for examples. Geometry guy 09:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Re "The article is very close to GA, but will struggle to go further, ..." that's much the same as Malleus' judgement, and mine is fairly similar, except I feel more strongly that the "plot summary" will strain the attention span of non-specialists. Sounds like we all have an eye on the fact that this is the 150th anniversary so the article has a strong claim for the front page if it reaches FA. --Philcha (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This hadn't crossed my mind. I don't pay much attention to FA and the main page. In some ways they are a kind of marketing which misrepresents a faulty product: millions of articles which don't even comply with basic policy standards. I'm more interested in encouraging the creation of decent content on a broad scale than elite content on a sparse scale, although I do recognise the value of the latter. Geometry guy 11:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree, which is why I have no plans to submit anything for FA (because of my aversion to time-consuming nit-picking rather than to "elite content") and have produced only a couple of DYKs (one just to make a point about an article I rescued from what I considered an abuse of AfD). However it would be a criminal waste of an opportunity if we didn't one or two Darwin-related articles well on the way to FA this year. -Philcha (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Apr 05, 12:35 UTC)

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 2035141 out of 2048000 bytes (12859 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi G-guy, I have done the partial transclusion trick for everything larger than 9000 here and when I look at the page size on wp:pr/d (listed by date) it is down to 1220854/2048000 bytes. However, when I look at WP:PR it is much larger. Not sure what the problem is. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Dr pda fixed the problem - thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Page move during a GA

I reviewed Talk:Action of 14–17 April 1809/GA1 and during the course of it we moved the article to a new page Troude's expedition to the Caribbean. How do I handle this for the GA Review archiving? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It suffices to move the review subpage to match, if I recall correctly. You can bypass any redirects if you want. Geometry guy 20:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hinduism talk page

Hi Geometry guy. There is a discussion on the Hinduism talk page related to NPOV and conflicts of interest issues etc. I am a new user, but I think you may want to take a look at it. The subject title being "Encyclopedia / propaganda ??". The subject is very much related to the last delisting of the article. You may discover the reasons for the continuous, disturbing, bad language in the article. It also requires the attention of some uninvolved administrators. Sorry for being unable to provide a link.117.198.52.119 (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)