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).

"Official" abbreviations of my username include G'guy, G-guy, Gguy and G guy. I promise to be at most mildly irritated by approximations relating to horses.

Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

WP:Good article reassessment/Nokian Tyres/1

What is "compelling prose". I seek knowledge not argument. Is compelling when you convince a criminal to stop crime? So the tyre article would convince people to buy Nokian tyres? I don't think that is what you meant. I don't want to sell tyres to anyone. I don't even use Nokian tyres.

By compelling, do you mean interesting? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It means engaging and easy to read - indeed a pleasure to read. It is not about selling tyres! At the moment the article seems repetitive and detailed, and lacks flow. Find a featured article on a similar topic and compare the writing style. Geometry guy 18:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is one FA about a popular politician that is not very well written, poor flow and style. However, I think the politician's supporters have made it a FA because they think that a star means that the politician is good. The star should mean the article is good, whether the article is about a saint or a criminal. But thanks for the idea about comparing articles. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea why you consider an article on a "popular politician" to be similar to one on a manufacturing company. For the latter, try articles like BAE Systems. Geometry guy 23:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Self-harm

Hi, first I'd like to wish you a happy New Year and thank you for your continued involvment in the GAR process, it is appreciated. Secondly I would like to ask for your comment on the Self-harm GAR page as I am a little frustrated now and I require someone to look at the bigger picture and see what actually needs to be done to make the article GA and which bits should be on the future wish list and dealt with on the article talk page instead of the GAR page. Many thanks. Jdrewitt (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to have been a misunderstanding, in which Doc James has considered himself to be still the primary reviewer, whereas in fact this is a community GAR, with no such reviewer. I have reverted. My apologies if I have deleted any significant comments. I think a fresh restart is the best way forward. Geometry guy 22:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help and nothing significant got deleted. A fresh restart sounds good. I really feel the references on the article are good and I have put a lot of effort into them which is why I got a bit upset by feeling a little un appreciated. Thanks again. Jdrewitt (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that I though it was an individual reassessment by mistake. Wondering how "No action" is appropriate however? There continues to be issues of references, prose, and insufficient detail regarding causes even though it has made substantial improvements over the last two weeks.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It allows for a fresh community GAR. There's too much baggage in the current one (in my view). If you disagree, then please try to restore constructive interactions with fellow editors in the current review. An apology there would be a good way to start. Geometry guy 23:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An apology for what? The mistaken close?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may prefer the restart option. The apology would be for mistaking the GAR for an individual one and acting accordingly (including the close in particular). Up to you anyway. Geometry guy 23:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have done. Do you have any comments about the article?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not today. Geometry guy 23:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay can we just leave it open until others comment?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations that have lasted a long time

Hi Geometry guy, what should be done when GAN reviews are old and nothing seems to be happening. e.g. Talk:Unit 101/GA1 or GANs that appear deserted with no recent activity? There are some that go back to last fall. (I have sent reminder notes to a few nominators who have not responded to their article reviews.) Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no general recipe: ping the reviewer, or (later, if no response) close as "not listed" and start a new GAN review. You can get good advice at WT:GAN. Geometry guy 23:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Thanks

No problem! Let me know if you see any other similar things cropping up (nasty-looking GARs, or GARs without much detail) and I'll do what I can to intercede. If you feel like practical thanks in the same sort of area, I have four unreviewed GANs up :). Ironholds (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technical question

Hi -- I know you're an expert on the use of bots and templates and so forth, so I was wondering if you had any ideas about a way to improve the shared resources page. It seems to be low traffic, and I can see why -- it would be very difficult and time consuming for someone to insert their own list of reference works into a page like this, and almost as hard for a content writer to use the page. I created my own list, which I am adding to periodically; this is much easier for me to maintain but less useful for others unless they happen to know of it. What would be nice is a way to add templates or category tags to individual reference library pages such as mine and to have a bot assemble the results into a catalogue of some kind. For article writers, that bot's catalog page would be a first stop on the way to finding sources. Any thoughts on a way to make this happen? Mike Christie (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear how best to organize all this information. One interpretation of your question would be to set up a page organized by subject area and in each section there would be a list of pages (like your own) where sources related to that subject area can be found. It wouldn't be so hard to do that manually. I could automate it using templates and categories: on each page of sources (like your own) editors would add a template indicating which subject areas they have sources for; this would put such pages into categories, and then a category listing bot would compile the list. I'm not sure whether that is much easier than the manual approach, but it could be done without a bot request. Beyond that, we would need to have a clearer idea what "a catalogue of some kind" would look like. Geometry guy 20:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that could work. I'll think about it and might post a suggestion for a local resource page at one of the projects for which I have relevant sources. That is, there could be a subpage of the sf project that contained a list of links to users' reference library pages. That would mean I should break up my page into project-specific pages, which is easy to do. I would suggest that other project members do something similar, and we'd see if the results were useful. I suspect a reasonably narrow scope and a moderately active membership are prerequisites for success (as they are for so many things here); without the narrow scope a million books could be listed. "Science fiction" might be narrow enough; "history" isn't, but "Anglo-Saxon history" might be. Thanks for the input -- I'll let you know what happens, if anything. Mike Christie (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't strictly necessary to break up pages in a project-specific way if categories are used, but I leave it to you to refine the idea for now. Geometry guy 23:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reversion

You unstruck the comments you told me to strike. Why? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only advised you to strike one comment. That remains struck. Your other contributions are much appreciated: see here for an example. Unfortunately, because you reacted in haste, without consultation, you are currently banned from the page. I hope that before these 6 months are over you will have learned to take your time. Geometry guy 00:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently banned from the page? Wow, that will teach me not to contribute! Lesson learned. Will not contribute substantively to an article. Glad you let me know, as I did not realize that I was banned from the page. Wikipedia is serious. I am amazed that I am banned from a page to which both you and RegentsPark said I had made substantial positive contributions. I guess that is the logic of Wikipedia. Certainly provides an incentive to me to positively contribute! Can't get over that. Banned from the page! Wow, and Wow! And you suggested that I wait a day or so to contribute to a page from which I am banned. Wow! Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wake up Mattisse. Read your own talk page. I banned you there. Now start learning to read and think before you react. Thanks, Geometry guy 01:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I don't see it. I did a "find" on "banned" on my talk page and came up with nothing. Perhaps you could point out your statement more clearly. It is best to be clear in such communications. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are still better at typing than reading: [1] Geometry guy 01:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather distressing. Geometry Guy's ban was so plain that even I saw it, and this subsequent wriggling is uncomely. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Geometry guy 01:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lesson learned. I will make no further contributions to the article. Banning me now ensures that. I will wait the 36 hours to delete my comments. Thank you for all you suggestions. I will be very careful not to contribute anything substantive to articles in the future. You have made it very clear that I will get "in trouble" for doing so. And I am being banned from the article, why? I attempted to strike the comments, but you reverted my strike.

(I have no wish to contribute to the article further, although my contributions thus far have been major. Such is Wikipedia.) Thank you Malleus for continuing to be so interested in everything concerning me. I am (almost) flattered. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. How is it "wriggling"? Why do you allow such unflattering characterizations on your talk page, and even support them? I take that as an insult and personal attack. I am only waiting to strike my comments from the article talk page. I have no intention of contributing again. Is this an effort to put any comments I make in an unflattering light. Please explain. I have not attempted and will not attempt to contribute to the article ever again. I did not know about the ban because I did not attempt to contribute. All I want to do is strike my comments. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a ban, nothing more, nothing less. You do not have to edit any article to see this, only to read your own talk page. Geometry guy 01:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I get lost in verbiage. Too much commenting. I have learned to disregard most of it. As I said, I have no intention of ever editing the article again. I guess that is why your ban did not register as meaningful. I will wait until the ban has ended to revert your unstriking of my comments. It certainly makes contributions unrewarding, and I will take that to heart. Sorry that I sought to improve the article. Big mistake! (I notice that my additions are being retained and are not destructive, but I will add no more.) Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 02:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sorry" is a start, but not yet sorry for the right reasons. The rest I will take to your talk page. Geometry guy 10:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ownership culture

In my arbitration the Ownership culture was mentioned as a distructive behavior for Wikipedia. But in this case, ownership or "lead editor" status was being assumed by others, e.g. [2] [3] So the sin is for me to accept it, since others are assuming it? Me being banned assures it. Wait until it is a FA as suggested. We will see who it "belongs" to. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<ec> (amended to clarify to match discussion in rest of thread, as SandyGeorgia just added quote below to her statement [4] without noting her amendment) Plus she added this [5] without noting amendment —mattisse (Talk) 18:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, that's enough. I have intentionally stayed out of this, and yet here you are bringing me in ("ownership was being assumed by others ... ").[6][7] That should be noted as a sample of how you escalate issues. Articlestats show that Moni3 is the lead editor there, plain and simple, no other assumptions. May I suggest that the mentors are heading into a danger zone here? Discussions are spread across multiple pages, and all related threads should be moved to and consolidated to the Monitoring page, where you can all deal with this in one place? That is its intended purpose, and in spite of other editors staying out, this does not appear to be de-escalating, so using the Monitoring page might keep everything in one place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Moni3 is the "lead editor" or has ownership, however you want to phrase it. And undoubtedly, as ~~you~~ is suggested, it will be her FA. It is Geometry guy who says she is not. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. The discussions are on my talk page and here. That is not "spread across multiple pages". Please to not inflame the situation. The arbitrators stressed that I should not be "baited". You appear to be doing that here. Because I used a diff of yours to imply ownership or "lead editor", which you agree is the case, is not a reason for you to enter this thread. But thank you for confirming my views on the "lead editor" bit. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the escalation. You brought in the thread on Moni3's page, and now you're accusing me of baiting because I got involved in developing a guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(post-ec addition) Further, Moni has taken a lead in establishing a guideline for similar articles, and I joined in that completely unrelated issue, so bringing me in to this is unhelpful and unnecessary provocation. And please do not put words in my mouth:[8] I have never made any mention of any potential FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for confirming my point of view regarding the "lead" editor bit. Now I think this can be dropped, as the disagreement over whether there is a "lead editor" or not is between me and Geometry guy. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try to read what I wrote: Moni has taken a lead in establishing a guideline for similar articles, ..."; that has been my area of involvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Moni3's response to SandyGeorgia's comment [9] shows that she read the meaning of comment the same way I did. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the point at hand: there are now five threads involving three user talk pages, in addition to the original article talk issue. I suggest the advisors/mentors move all of those to the Monitoring page to keep it all in one place, contain discussion, and prevent escalation. I should be able to comment on Moni's talk page on an unrelated guideline issue without seeing it spread to another user talk page I watch. That is the purpose of the Monitoring page; please use it so the rest of us can stay out of this, and avoid having this spill over into Moni's unrelated attempts to develop a guideline. End of my involvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citing supportive diffs from a talk page does not mean that the talk page is "involved". This discussion is between me and Geometry guy. I merely gave some diffs from a talk page to support my point to him. There is no reason for SandyGeorgia to have involved herself in this, although I thank her for supporting my point. However, she is not part of this discussion and may feel free to disengage. This discussion is taking place on two talk pages only. Please do not spread it further. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]