User talk:Geometry guy/Archive 11

Hi, G-guy! :)

Just a quick note to tell you that I'm back and that I made some progress thinking about Apollonius' problem and Kepler problem in general relativity. I think I finally understand the solutions to the latter, which made me really happy although also embarrassed that I was so benighted before. I hadn't realized that the constant of integration φ₀ could be a complex number; I just assumed it was a physical angle, and therefore should be real. But as I finally grew to understand elliptic functions (they're hard, but cool!) and tried to rederive some special cases, it all came into focus for me. I still can't claim to understand everything, but I feel as though I have a grip on it. I'll try to hold up my end of the FA-Team as well. Nice to be back, and hoping to hear from you soon, Willow (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Oh, will you help me with Action potential? I gave my word to spiff that article up, and I think I could use some help, or at least a sound sounding board. :) Thanks! Willow (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely to hear from you! I'm back in action too, but still desperately busy. Sounding board I can be, all else is time permitting :-) Geometry guy 00:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Émile Lemoine

User:Nousernamesleft is wanting to take Émile Lemoine to FAC. I told him I don't think it's ready. This may be up your alley... Later! Ling.Nut (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw this. You are right, it isn't quite ready, but I don't know Lemoine enough to know how much more material there is on him. Geometry guy 19:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I hope you are pleased that WP:MMM is using your favourite citation method (if I remember rightly) for its articles.

GAR closure template

Hi G-Guy, I closed this GAR and added the {{Old GAR}} template to the article's talk page, per the instructions. The template, however, indicates that "no action was taken". Is there a variable to set to cause the template to indicate the correct action (delist)? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I forgot to document that bit! (I set up {{Old GAR}} before the break.) The parameter is "result". I will add to the documentation. Thanks for spotting this: please try it out to see if there are any other errors. Geometry guy 22:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that fixed it. As an aside, do we real want to be adding more templates to talk pages? Wouldn't simply updating the {{articlehistory}} template be a more efficient way to go? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 22:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is another useful reminder: of course {{Old GAR}} is simply an alternative to updating {{ArticleHistory}}. If this change works, I'll ask Gimmetrow to support the automatic conversion of Old GAR actions into ArticleHistory events, but I guess that means I should add a date to the template... Geometry guy 22:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much!

Hi, I'm just dropping by to say thanks for all your work on Mario Vargas Llosa. All three of the members in our group were completely new to Wikipedia so your help was greatly needed and appreciated. Thanks again. :) Lincolnchan98 (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. I'm just having fun fiddling with templates :-) Geometry guy 09:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fa team

If you'll look at the talk page for Mission 1 you'll see why I was very uncomfortable with being the mission leader. I care too much about things to be a good leader. I get paranoid and I blow up on people. I'm also not really anywhere near as good an editor as any other member of the team. I'm just good for background enthusiasm and rocket thrust. Wrad (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ach, you're doing grand. Background enthusiasm and rocket thrust is very much appreciated! As for the little contretemps: everyone step away from their computers for a little while (God knows I should!), take a breather, and we'll be OK. I quite understand your frustration, and also SandyGeorgia's. Don't the two of you slink away both feeling bad about yourselves! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrad, your enthusiasm and energy have been a great example. I have had limited time for this project, but have recently managed to open up some space and I hope I can help some of these articles jump the last hurdles; one of the things that has really kept me interested in the project is the awareness that editors like yourself, GeometryGuy, EyeSerene, Awadewit and others have been working on a very worthy goal; I want to help too and your energy has been an example to me. Mistakes are normal -- check anyone's edit history. Don't worry about it -- you are doing a great deal of good. Mike Christie (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto to all. Wrad, I no longer have time to follow talk pages closely, and my dropping in now and then to try to lend a hand isn't helping ... resulting in misunderstanding because I thought Wassup was a class member. Please forget it and keep up the good work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for calling in here y'all! But what a terrible host I am! I should have been here sooner to offer you a glass of beer (or your beverage of choice), and then we could all have a good laugh about the misunderstandings that so easily arise on Wikipedia. I did indeed step away from my computer... to sleep :-)

I'm glad that it has all been sorted out anyway. Wrad retains my full confidence as Mission leader :-) Geometry guy 09:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that beer looks good! ;) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind?

I was hoping you could take a preliminary look at Fighting Tommy Riley and offer an informal opinion on my talk page on its chances to make GA. I think it's close but I'm concerned about the production section. If you don't have the time to do it, that's fine. Otto4711 (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, although if you still want to look at it and offer feedback, I stumbled across some additional sources so I think it's good to be nominated. Thanks though. Otto4711 (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I scanned it very briefly. It looks like it has a reasonable chance, although the reviewer may question the length of the plot summary, and whether the critical response section is balanced (it gives the impression of effusive mainstream reviews, with a negative reaction from the LGBT point of view - do you see what I mean?). Geometry guy 19:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do, but I think I balanced the section on the basis of the overall tenor of the reviews. If it turns out to be a problem there are other reviews out there that I can quote as well. As for the plot summary length, well, yes, I've had that battle before so we'll see what happens. Thank you for your input. Otto4711 (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV writing in Indonesian occupation of East Timor

With regard to your comments at the GA reassessment, I've edited the lead in an attempt to remove the POV prose therein. I've revised each of the leading sentences you mentioned, but I wonder if you feel that even mentioning the UN condemnation of the occupation is inappropriate for the lead> (I feel it's important and not POV, but I moved it down to the third paragraph.) Thanks for your attention to detail on this article. – Scartol • Tok 18:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, but even without looking, let me say I think it is not only appropriate, but essential to mention the UN condemnation in the lead. Neutral point of view is not about whitewashing; it is about presenting the reader with the information and letting the reader decide. The UN condemnation is crucial information. Geometry guy 19:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, whew. I was just wondering because you flagged it as a "Long noun phrases [which is] not good encyclopedic style". But I suppose you were referring to prose style alone, not POV problems. I suppose I read it wrong. Sorry for the confusion. (I'm in a heightened state of POV awareness after all the hullaballoo on that page.) – Scartol • Tok 20:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I had a quick look, and have to say I don't much like the first sentence/paragraph. Of course, the fact that 100000 lives were lost as a result of the occupation is lead material, but putting it in a separate paragraph in the first sentence is telling the reader what they are supposed to think, rather than letting them reach their own conclusions. Geometry guy 19:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hot water :P

Hey G-guy,

I'm getting into a little hot water over my neglect of action potential, so I'm going to start on it tomorrow and I'll need your help as a sounding board. I'd also appreciate your ideas for the problem of Apollonius, which is finally getting decent methinks; well, at least I hope you think so. ;) I intend to take poA to FAC after making a few figures and tracking down a few more references, so any suggestions you have or improvements you make would be very welcome. Thanks and sorry I've been lame about the FA-team, Willow (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles both look beautiful, and Apollonius has greatly improved since I saw it last (I haven't looked at either carefully yet, but have looked more closely at Apollonius). They are both magnificent demonstrations of Willow strengths in writing articles, but also suffer from Willow weaknesses. Forgive me for adopting my traditional role, going back to Encyclopedia Britannica (remember? :-), of concentrating on the latter, and hence being the worst critic of a dear friend! In a nutshell, the problems are: lead too long; more citations needed; some original research. These reflect your passion to share knowledge with the reader, but Wikipedia has to do this in an encyclopedic way. Concerning Apollonius, the article makes great use of the observation that the 8 solutions come in 4 pairs. I think it is important that this idea be attributed to Gergonne (if that is the correct attribution). It also suggests a combinatorial (binary) reason why there are eight solutions (if there is a source for that - I've not read carefully yet). The article doesn't need to be in chronological order, but it can present the problem based upon its history, and it would seem natural to frame the development of solutions in terms of the best current understanding of the problem.

Concerning original research, I'm not convinced that the tables of numbers are very helpful, but that may just be because I am a mathematician, and therefore don't like numbers very much. Concerning the colour coding of the images, I got used to it fairly quickly, but it might be worth thinking again if there is a more optimal solution which distinguishes between the black/magenta circles and the RGB circles. How about black dashes vs black dots (as complements of each other)? Just a random idea and it would probably look horrible. That's all for now. Geometry guy 22:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I notice you use space em-dashes. I prefer them too. The question is, why? How would you react if you were told that this style choice was not allowed on Wikipedia?

It's so nice to hear from you, it's almost like listening to music. :) I think you know me well enough by now to know that I could never be angry or upset at anything you want to say. On the contrary, I love it when you show me something I couldn't see by myself; friends are the best mirrors. :) Could you actually imagine that I would not want you to correct me or improve the article — that I would want to wallow in deluded self-satisfaction? Umm, I hope not! ;)

Let's see, there's so much to reply to here! First, I do prefer em-dashes when I'm using them as a kind of parenthetical. They give a better separation of the clause from the surrounding sentence than do en-dashes, and they convey more realistically the sound of what I would be saying. (As Aristotle says, written words are merely symbols for spoken words.) I use en-dashes mainly for number ranges (especially page ranges in references) and also for negative signs in some contexts. Secondly, you shouldn't give me credit for anything in action potential except the lead section — yet. I have some serious magic to weave by next Friday and I'll need your help.

I'm so happy that you approve of the problem of Apollonius, and I'm grateful for your suggestions. I won't fix them until after next weekend, or after I finish action potential, whichever comes first. The lead is too long, but I wasn't sure of the parts I should remove. You picked right up on my own confusion about the number of solutions. I see it quite clearly from the algebraic solution (2 roots per choice of signs, 8 choices, symmetry between r_s and –r_s solutions) but Pedoe (1970) suggests that there's a way to see geometrically that there can be only one solution for a given choice of signs. As for the fact that the solutions can be grouped into pairs with opposite signs, that seems mysterious to me as yet; maybe there's some inversive way of showing that, or some deep connection to the homothetic centers? For example, if a solution with signs "+ – +" exists, must there always be a solution with signs "– + –"?

The example solution might be construed as OR, but I would argue against that interpretation. I think it's nice to give a concrete worked example for readers to test methods out on, both their own and those described in the article. I recognize that numbers are boring, but I would argue for their inclusion somewhere, since (1) the results help the article; (2) the solution could not be published in a notable journal; and (3) it was pretty trivial to compute them using the methods described. Maybe we could relegate the tables and their description to an appendix or something like that.

Back to action potential; there's no rest for the wicked! ;) Willow (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! I never hesitate to throw my harshest criticisms in your direction, knowing that I will receive warmth and insight in return :-)

As for the Apollonius problem, I've understood where the binary signs come from (I expect you know this too): they are orientations. Also my previous speculation that the problem is invariant under Lie sphere transformations is correct, and so I've started to prepare a 2nd Wiki-birthday present for you. I think I'll need your help to make it as beautiful as you deserve, so I hope you find it! Fixing action potential is a rewarding challenge, but sorting out the Apollonius problem is much more fun and I'm into it now :-) ! Having said that, it is always a pleasure watching you weave your magic :-)

Finally, I miswrote my question on em-dashes: the question is, do you prefer them to be spaced (as I do, rather than unspaced) and if so, why? Geometry guy 21:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lie sphere geometry

I really have to dart away, but I just found your letter, and I couldn't delay answering it, being so late as I was! I'm really touched that you remembered my wiki-birthday coming up, and were working on a cool article for it — that's the Lie sphere geometry, right? :D I read the first few paragraphs, and I sort of catch the drift, but it's still very fuzzy for me. The idea of a single point x = [λ(1,0,0,0,0)+v] in the five-dimensional space mapping into a circle in the two-dimensional space — is that like how you can define a plane square by giving its normal vector with length equal to its area? I'm intuiting that from the requirement y ˑ v = 0; maybe λ corresponds to the circle's radius? I haven't thought it through, unfortunately; I'm just feeling my way by intuition. It might be helpful to give a concrete example, for faster comprehension; maybe you could give the formulae for the five projective coordinates in terms of the center C and radius R of the circle in the plane? Also, in the sentence,

the circle corresponding to [λ(1,0,0,0,0)+v] ∈ Q (with λ ≠ 0) is the set of points y ∈ S with y ˑ v = 0,

perhaps you should use a different variable (such as, say, p) for y, since in the next section you have y ∈ Q? Anyway, I'm sorry for too many suggestions from someone so benighted, but I'm really touched and thank you again for remembering me, G-guy. Willow (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I haven't really thought about it, but I think I like the spaces around the em-dash just for, well, cleanliness and immediacy of comprehension. It's easier for me to read things when they're well-separated and not mushed together or run-on. Also, there's no chance of a confusion with a hyphen, when the words are well — separated. ;) Willow (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really shouldn't give me nice dreams like that, when I'm trying to think of something else. ;) My mind was turning over your Lie sphere all night while I was asleep, like turning over a strange sea-shell in my hand at the beach. I've a bazillion questions, but I'll mostly wait until the hurly-burly's over, for better or worse. Quick question, though: why do you call it a celestial sphere? Shouldn't it be a unit sphere, or a Riemann sphere, or a stereographic projection sphere or something like that? Also I was troubled by this: if the circle on the Riemann sphere is defined by the equation y ˑ v = 0, where v lies on the sphere, then it seems like you could get only great circles on the sphere, since the small ones might have a component parallel to y. Then you couldn't get all the circles on the plane. Somehow I think you need to get all possible intersections of a plane with the Riemann sphere, but I'm not sure how to do that in your five-dimensional space, at least not yet. Maybe I'll have more nice dreams tonight and the answer will be whispered to me; I have some vey smart stuffed animals. ;) Is the radius of the Riemann sphere λ, by the way? Dashing off to work, Willow (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next week, dear Willow, and we can dream sweet dreams together. Geometry guy 23:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Action potential

Thanks so much for your help on action potential. :) I'm pretty tired now, so I think I'm just going to slink off to bed with some nice sock-knitting that I've been meaning to finish for my sis. I may need to rest my hand, though. :P What do you think of the Math section? Is it hopelessly obscure, do you think? Still, it's got to be covered, somehow.

I'm feeling rather serene and happy, despite being tired. It's nice to feel friendship swirling around me. :)

Alle Guten, alle Bösen

Folgen ihrer Rosenspur.

Küsse gab sie uns und Reben,

Einen Freund, geprüft im Tod.

To sleep, perchance to dream... Willow (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was pretty obscure, yes. I've tried to explain it, having found a mathematician-friendly source (i.e., a source which defines everything and explains where it comes from: I think we mathematicians have quite reasonable requirements for friendliness :) Is it any better now? It probably needs a non-mathematician to go over it, but Awadawit appears to be on the case. Geometry guy 21:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

food for thought...

Interesting. Geometry guy 19:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Augusto Roa Bastos

I was waiting for them to atleast add a paragraph to each section and the themes one is still empty.. On the other hand comparing the present revision to the one on march 16(when I wrote my comments) clearly shows quite an improvement, so I'm not really sure what to do.. maybe we can uprate them and at the same time ask for a paragraph for the themes section to be written? (also that chronology thingy has to go though I see theres been some discussion about it already so better not get into it..) Acer (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your suggestion to uprate and use the opportunity to raise outstanding issues is the best plan. Geometry guy 20:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll do that. On a side note I'm a little worried about Miguel Angel Asturias, the GA reviewer seems to have gone AWOL.. Acer (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've reset the MAA GAN. Geometry guy 20:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I uprated ARB and left a few words. Good call reseting the nom, I was going to try and find someone to review it but you beat me to it :D Acer (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried a couple of avenues, but if you have any ideas, let me know. Geometry guy 21:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of Yllosubmarine, she was going to review I, the Supreme but I'm doing it instead, so perhaps she woulnd´t mind reviewing another one in its place? Acer (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but I suggest waiting 24 hours to see if any of the other reviewers are interested. Geometry guy 22:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems Solved , good job :) Acer (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daara J

Realist2 has already asked someone for assistance, but I thought another opinion couldn't hurt (especially since you're somewhat of a GA guru). S/he reviewed the article and put it on hold for comprehensiveness. I added some more content, but, as the references for a relatively obscure article such as this are understandably sparse, I couldn't come up with really any more information. However, the reviewer believes the article still needs more. I was wondering what, if anything, you think about this situation. Relevant links:

--Kakofonous (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple of edits, but the prose is not good in places. I suggest peer review. Geometry guy 21:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Angel Asturias

Okay, I've done a GA review, putting it on hold. Please let me know if you have questions. – Scartol • Tok 22:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about not getting on this quicker, I've been a bit busy. Did you still feel that furhter comments are needed? I looked at the article and at Scartol's comments, and they look spot on to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is already a useful comment, thanks! Can I ping you if the article goes to peer review? Geometry guy 18:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Not a concern at all. I'm trying to do a GA review a day, along with the stuff at FAC, so I've not completely abandoned GA! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two replies

Thanks for the note. I see that Scartol has got the GA review sorted, so job done, but I'll have a bash at a 'delisting' article today (recovered now; what made it worse was I had already booked the week off to do some decorating... none of which got done :P ). All the best, EyeSerene^talk 07:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The editorial action usually happens at User:Derek.cashman/Next GA Newsletter. Geometry guy 09:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link you've given above still contains last month's newsletter, so I've put some thoughts down here; any comments etc are welcome! EyeSerene^talk 12:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleared out last month's newsletter and copied your essay over. I tried to come up with a snappy title, but found only a cliche. Anyway, we can tweak it at the Newsletter editing desk. Geometry guy 17:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! EyeSerene^talk 18:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: next ga newsletter

Thanks. I think we also need to put a few April Fools jokes into the newsletter. If you have any ideas, please add them to the draft version. ;-) Dr. Cash (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is probably the best place for this. I've suggested a couple of ideas: usual structure is to sound innocent at first, and become more and more outrageous with each entry. Please improve my first attempt. Geometry guy 22:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PR error and suggestions

Hi Geometry guy,

here is an error and a couple of ideas to make things run better at Peer Review.

There is a problem with the April PR requests - they transclude the pink box from semi automated PR page even though no SAPR has yet been run - see this diff for a kluge / temporary fix (switching to the March version instead of April). Besides the request for History of Norwich City F.C., I also fixed the one for Black Moshannon State Park.
I have found the {{Peer review|archive=1}} template on two or three article pages (not talk pages) in the course of archiving over the past month or so. I seem to recall there are templates that give an error message if not placed on a talk page - any way to do that here too?
I also find a fair number of screwed up topics at the {{Peer review page|topic= }} part of the process. People will write out the full name (not the abbreviation) or add two abbreviations at once or write whatever (no relation to the abbreviations). Is there any way this could be made a pull down menu like the license menus at Commons? Or at least provide a full list during the process like the topic list shown when making an AfD nomination?

Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re 1, I think you've got it now. There needs to be at least one onlyinclude on the SAPR page. I've fixed History_of_Norwich_City_F.C., and leave it to you to fix the other case (links to peer review pages or talk pages, rather than articles, are more helpful when we discuss these things).

Re 2, I can probably make the template create an error message if it is not on article talk. Ping me if I forget.

Re 3, the template is intended to be very permissive about the form of the topic: if you are seeing common errors, let me know, and I will make the template support them. Geometry guy 21:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Thanks for the fix, and sorry for not giving more links - I assumed the diff was enough.

2) OK, it is something I only see a few times a month, so it may be a while before I see it again (if you forget)

3) There are not common errors that I recall, more the error that they are trying to list a review in a topic and failing to do so.

4) Something new - I also see a fair number of screwed up archive attempts - mostly they just paste some form of the "This is closed" notice in the review and leave the template they are supposed to replace there all along. I usually catch those on the second day. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MoS frustration

Four things:

1. Where's my wedding present ?

2. This constant shuttling between Tony and you is getting expensive and is interfering with my beauty sleep; you should start picking up first class airfare so I can get a good nights' sleep on the flights.

3. See my frustration thread at User talk:Tony1.

4. I suspect that Dank, as a relative newcomer to the MoS talk page, doesn't understand just how much needling Tony has been putting up with and for how long it has gone on, not only at MoS, but also on FAC and FAR pages. We need to do something; what about that Project ? I don't have time to jumpstart it, and I feared it would a) stall if no one did and b) be overcome by the same verbosity that dominates the MoS talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first two things generate a big :-), the second two things a :-(. I know things are not working out very well, and I have not done as much as I could to make them work out better. For now, I have very limited Wikitime until Sunday. It seems to me that the WikiProject has so far been spared the problems of the MoS page, and can easily be brought to life again. It does need a sense of purpose, however, and I hope we can back each other up on that once we both have the time and energy. In the meanwhile, as a compromise, fly business class! Geometry guy 21:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no on the business class :-) Anyway, something must be done. My time is stretched, but it's reaching crisis proportions and needs sustained attention. I don't know what else to do (other than an RFCU on PMA with a request that he leave the MoS pages alone since he hates them so much), but losing Tony to this incessant needling and taunting would be a huge loss to Wiki, on the copyediting skills alone. Considering PMA's intense dislike of the MoS, I fail to grasp why he doesn't just leave the pages alone and let those who do care clean them up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

I urge you to participate in the conversation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tony1. I believe that you could add some diffs that illustrate the problem. Thanks. Finell (Talk) 21:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may comment tomorrow, if I have time. See also the thread immediately above. Geometry guy 21:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AN/I thread apparently got archived by a (re)tired editor who did not sign to take responsibility for the action. I have unarchived it, but there isn't a great deal more to say. I find myself agreeing with pretty much everything said by all sides. I could post my own analysis of the issue, but I'm not convinced it would be terribly helpful, and I'm travelling for a few days now. Geometry guy 10:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Indonesian occupation of East Timor (1975-1999)/1

Eek...any comments on closing this one? No comment for a month, but I see why people are avoiding it! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been encouraged to see Scartol working on it, but I think it is probably not there yet. I will look again early next week if no one beats me to it. Geometry guy 15:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you're keeping an eye on it, that's fine. I'll leave it to you. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now you keep an eye on me! Geometry guy 22:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move please!

Could you move The President (novel) to El Señor Presidente? There's enough consensus on the talk page, I think. I think we could also usurp The President as a dab, if not to redirect to this article, but that can wait. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was mostly offline this weekend; thanks to Wassupwestcoast for sorting out the main issue. Geometry guy 22:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for article review

I just wanted to thank you for your review of natural family planning. It was very clear, and has really helped me see what areas of the article need work. Lyrl^Talk _C 12:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope these comments help to improve the article. I also really appreciated your comment. Reviewing articles is not easy, and I don't do it very often and I know that critical comments can be wrong, or hard to take, so it is great when they are appreciated. Geometry guy 22:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hey, good to see you're back :)

Can you read my post here (no relation to the posts above it) It was intended for you but I though you were away... Anyway can you take a look and tell me if I'm sane?

PS: EyeSerenes up for adminship, thought you might like know Acer (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into the former if I get time. I've watchlisted the latter. Thanks for pinging me. Geometry guy 23:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re my RFA

I don't know the procedures either, but I certainly have no objection. In fact, I'm very flattered that you would offer! EyeSerene^talk 23:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into it tomorrow, but I think it is mostly a formality. Geometry guy 23:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close this issue?

There hasnt been much movement on this issue. Any idea what to do next? Realist2 (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no harm in waiting a couple more days in accordance with the GAR guidelines for closing discussions. Geometry guy 08:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally could you check out the Thriller album for me, its my own personal nomination, ive worked very hard on it, ive completed all the suggestions for improvement so hopefully the reviewer will pass it, fingers crossed, but he's away right now so i was wondering if you had any extra advise, just so that i seal the deal so to speak. As you might be aware its the 25th anniversary of Thriller, im gonna try to get it up to FA by the end of the year. I want it to make news outside of the wiki community. Getting Thriller to FA would be great for wiki and the memory of this cultural centre piece. Realist2 (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MMM template

Gguy, I note that you list "templates" as one of your specialities. Well, I have a little problem...

I'm trying to construct what has got to be the simplest template in the world. But you'll see that even that simple thing ain't working. Do you have any ideas? (Or any models, for wording as well as code... I vaguely remember seeing similar notices on articles that had been collaborations of the day/week/month etc.)

Many thanks! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed by Gimmetrow I believe! Thanks Gimmetrow! Geometry guy 10:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I'm still fiddling and will convey my thanks to Gimmetrow shortly! (Just now, distracted.) But thanks to you, too. :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MoS requirements at WP:GAN

I want to make sure I understand. I think I follow "the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct". I'm not sure if I follow what "MoS is broadly followed" means, or rather, I don't know what "broadly" means there. Is there anything I should know about the specific links to lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation? That is, are some of those sections seen as not that important, or are there additional style guidelines that people think of as very important?

I've noticed two problems right away: the language advice is not always right (usually things left out rather than said), and editors (naturally) sometimes doubt the correctness of the advice, whether it's right or not. By "right" here, I don't mean "according to our particular MoS", I mean "probably not what you see in any peer-reviewed or publishing-house writing these days". I may be able to make a contribution to the general level of confidence in the "well-written" part of GAN review, particularly if people see me as a frequent contributor to style guidelines, and also as someone who is flexible and open-minded. Seems like a good target to aim for, anyway. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put survey notices in all the articles in the Math section and below that have shown up through today, that's 20. I can stop there if you guys like or keep adding from those sections. I'll stop taking answers to the survey on April 30, then we can see if we've learned anything. What I expect to learn, what I hope to learn, is that people want more flexibility than MoS allows, and that there are often reasons for this ... such as, they are used to seeing different words or orthography. I'd like to get an idea of what kind of variance we're talking about, and how they feel about the differences between MoS and what they're used to. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link me to some responses to the survey? Geometry guy 14:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already done, see all of them at WT:GAU. Btw, I have set a firm end date of April 30 on all of them, in part because it's good survey practice, in part so that people will know how long they have, but mostly because I don't want anyone to worry that some new ongoing process has been introduced without consensus. We're just asking questions, and then everyone gets to look at the answers on May 1 and decide whether it means anything and what they want to do about it. My goal is to be helpful when specifically asked, and otherwise not to say anything before May 1 that might bias the results. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to list all of the survey requests. It would be helpful to know which have received responses. Geometry guy 15:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers 1, 4-8, 10, 12, 18, at the moment. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PR suggestion

Hi G guy, just wanted to let you know that Carl is going to have Veblenbot archive the Peer reviews at some point and I have found two more peer reviews in the past few days where the PR template was at the top of the article page (not the article talk page). Any progress on making it one of those templates that gives a warning or won't let itself be added to a non-talk page? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added error messages to the PR template, and to the peerreview template, and tested them. Let me know if there are problems. Geometry guy 14:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. I only see it when I do a peer review and go to read the article. I am trying to make sure every request gets a PR, so by the time I get to them they are at least 3 days old, so it will take a while to work though the system. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi friend

Hi G-guy. First of all I want to thank you for watching over Mario Vargas Llosa. I know you've been keeping an eye on this article and jump in when you can. With the FAC deadline soon approaching, do you think you could have a look over the article to see what else is needed? I greatly appreciate all the help you've been. Thanks! Lincolnchan98 (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Math help?

GG, I was referred to you by WillowW as someone who might be willing to help me fill in the mathematics discussion in my reconstruction of the Emmy Noether article. I'm totally lost when it comes to numbers, so I really need someone to just write the stuff. I will be forever in your debt, and of course I understand if you haven't the time (or it's outside your area of expertise). With thanks in advance. – Scartol • Tok 00:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work so far! Could you provide sources for the material you don't understand, or, perhaps better, quotations? I'm not very familiar with Noether's work beyond Noether's theorem and Noetherian rings, but I should be able to make sense of the math once I know what the math is. Geometry guy 10:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'll post some excerpts later today or tomorrow. I may also need some help with synthesis. I'm really not sure what fits together with what. I've tried to delineate the different areas of study, but I have no clue what qualifies as Galois theory compared to ring theory. Thanks again and I'll be in touch. – Scartol • Tok 19:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're willing, perhaps we could start with Galois theory, currently the skimpiest subsection? The best online source I can find is this paper. Thanks again for your assistance! Blnguyen has also offered to help, so maybe the two of you can bounce ideas off each other.. – Scartol • Tok 15:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, time permitting, but I see you have Willow and R.e.b. working on it, which is fantastic. I was going to suggest you shipped out the draft soon: nice move. Geometry guy 21:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess I was paranoid about it not being good enough for the mainspace yet, but I realized that was silly. Maybe I subconsciously think of it as a product roll-out. Like when Buick releases a new car. I want everyone to go "Oooh! Wow!" Anyway, we do indeed have some qualified math folks pitching in, so there's no urgency. (But of course you're still welcome to have a look.) – Scartol • Tok 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but here people still go "Ooh wow" even when the fenders are missing. They might not always mention their appreciation, and might simply say "This needs fenders". More likely, you'll find a bunch of folk who want to add the fenders to complete a nice car. Geometry guy 00:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for your kind praise on the WikProjMath talk page. Now, can you tell me why you prefer citation templates? I feel that they add a bunch of code which is harder to deal with, which is why I don't use them. But I'm open to other perspectives, so here's your chance to convince me. Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 14:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←) There are several reasons. First, they separate form and content: you supply the data, the template does the mark-up. Second they make the formatting consistent between references, which is not always clear when templates are not used. Before my edit about half of the references used the citation template, while the rest had some inconsistencies, and even a missing publisher and year in one case. Using templates draws attention to issues like this. Third, the templates allow the citations to be wikilinked using {{Harv}}: this is already done for the Emmy Noether references in the footnotes. It could be done for all of the footnotes, which would help readers to navigate from the footnote to the source.

I've done this now, and consequently found two missing sources. Geometry guy 23:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that; I've been meaning to go through and check for such a thing. I agree that linking the notes and the sources is nice, but I just bristle at the code clutter. Perhaps I'll get over it with time. Thanks again for your work on the article. – Scartol • Tok 23:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Above, I should say, for clarity "and consequently have found that two sources are missing". They are Lane and Taussky. Geometry guy 09:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Wouldn't you know it – I left my Noether books at home today. I'll fill 'em in later today or tomorrow. I should also mention, as I look back over this discussion: It's so absurd for me to make decisions about moving the article to the mainspace based on egoistic considerations. Ah, well, it follows me whenever I climb. – Scartol • Tok 12:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA...

Thank you...

...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! Once again, thank you, and I really appreciated the offer of a co-nom. Best regards ;)
EyeSerene^talk 17:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another PR problem ;-)

Hi G guy, can you fix Wikipedia:Peer review/LNER Class A1/A3/archive1 somehow or tell them what to do to fix it? The "/" character in the article title is causing all the trouble.

On an unrelated note, is there a quick way to tell which PR requests are largest for the partial transclusion trick? I just stat at the bottom of the chronological list (oldest) and scroll my way up and do the trick on any that seem too big. From your previous posts, it seemed as if you had some way of knowing which individual PR requests were the largest.

Thanks in adavnce for your help, and as always, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed this by hand, and also attempted to fix {{PR/subst}} so that it handles slashes in page titles automatically. I hope I did it right: we'll soon find out! As for the longest peer reviews, Carl made me a tool: it is here. The current PRs over 15K are:

It is possible you've got all of these already, in which case, run Carl's tool to see the complete list. Geometry guy 19:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much - I semi-transcluded more (all but Mulholland Drive were already). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the Hindenburg archive problem. I do not understand how to fix the Article History template, but Michael Jackson has a peer review problem - the first two per reviews in article history link to the same page. I just closed "PR archive=2", which should be archive 3 if the othertwo are fixed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was truly messed up: two peer reviews on the same page. I've split them and moved the latest to archive 3, fixing links etc. etc. Geometry guy 10:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAU update

See WT:WGA#Update. As always, feel free to reply here, or there, or nowhere. - Dan (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:FA team

OK. I'll do what I can, but I'm pretty busy this week. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 19:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rumours

Intelligences have gathered intel that an angel has landed on FA-team. The agent has not confirmed whether this angel is an archangel or a fallen angel. It is advised to raise the security level to Condition Red.

I apologize for replying a day late due to exams. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and thanks for making me laugh! Geometry guy 17:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murder, Madness , and Mayhem

2 of the articles that were listed in mission # 1 are FAs. Should I put a {{done}} on it or get rid of the 2? Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 21:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]