User talk:Geometry guy/Archive 17

citation talk

I think this is a place where you input could be useful... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

GAR

Also here. Heh, frankly where wouldn't your input be useful? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh my... it never just rains, does it? I will attend in due course. Geometry guy 08:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope the GA folk have a troupe ready to deal with articlehistory template conversion and errors now that we've lost Gimmetrow. I won't have time to repair all the errors myself: I'll just have to revert them and wait for some GA folk to re-do them correctly. Can you possibly drum up people to check Category:ArticleHistory error daily so it won't all fall to me? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Why daily? Geometry guy 08:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been meaning to start checking for these more often, but every time I look you've already got to them all, Sandy! I'll try to start checking daily. Dr pda (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to check it out every so often—just fixed one now. Pagrashtak 12:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Daily, regularly, routinely ... whatever :-) I click on it whenever it occurs to me, but I do try to check it at least daily. Often, the errors are from vandlism, but I'm unsure what will happen now without Gimmetrow (that is, without him processing all the GA templates, will we see more errors?). I'll have to revert to the older FAC and FAR templates, so that will introduce another chance for error, as editors might begin to build AH themselves. Perhaps a reminder somewhere in the GA process that reviewers don't "have" to update ah (they can just use the GA templates, and leave ah to someone who knows how to build it) would help? Also, a reminder to get Dr pda's articlehistory script. And follow up on the GAR, G guy, I readily admit that I don't understand the processes or the instructions (unclear how you distinguish when you should just initiate a new GAN or take it to GAR and what you do when an article was failed even though all issues were addressed before it failed ... GAR is used differently than FAR, which is only for defeaturing an article already featured, so it's confusing ... at any rate, it now looks like the process is working, although this does perhaps provide an example of where instructions might be improved). I doubt that we'll ever know Gimme's thinking on the matter, since I don't expect we'll hear from him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary I expect we will hear from him. Time will tell who is right, but he will be greatly missed for all the good work he does no matter how long he is away.

However, regarding this incident I have pulled my punches considerably. I continue to do so now and wish to say nothing more about it than this: you did not check the edit history carefully before presuming GA inconsistency instead of a misjudgement by a good editor. If I can clarify the GAR guidelines I will do so once the current storms have died down. My guess is that this will be in about 3 weeks.

I'm willing to check the ah error category once a week, but if I always find it empty, there's a good chance I will stop doing so. I consider it anal to keep such a category clean on a daily basis. If I didn't, then my whole wiki-life would be spent at Category:All articles with unsourced statements, which currently has a totally unacceptable 125346 articles in it. Perspective, no? Geometry guy 21:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, here is my perspective. If the articlehistory error category becomes overwhelmed, it no longer serves any purpose, which is why I keep up with it regularly. If it were to grow to the thousands, it would be useless, and I'd have no easy means of finding errors on FA talk pages, which is why the category was started. Perhaps our perspective is different because of different maintenance chores we each are involved in, and on that note, I won't delve into your "punches pulled" comment above, since we fundamentally disagree on a few matters, and there are more important issues to be resolved right now. Let's just say that delving into all of the issues that are being raised right now would create an enormous distraction at a delicate time where we've all got additional work on our plates. The best possible outcome, of course, would be for Gimme to return and resume his considerably helpful work, so I hope you're right on that score. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Update, wow ... I just checked her contribs, and noticed that Maralia (talk · contribs) has been botifying the GAs (and there aren't many left). What a trooper ! Doing that work manually is quite a chore. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That is good news and we need some!! More positive replies. Yes, it is a good idea to remind GA editors that ah is optional: I will do this in a few days. I'm less convinced about the pda script, since I don't see the point of editors searching for oldids: dates and times are good enough for most purposes, and these can be provided at no effort using five tildes. But it is worth mentioning it for those editors who think the trouble is worthwhile. We may need to adapt according to the level of bot support that we now have, and we'll certainly need to work together. I know we are both passionate about the quality of the Wikipedia project and that, for me, is the most important thing. Very best regards, Geometry guy 21:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Another reminder (actually, one that causes a lot of work) is that it's better not to build an AH if it's built incompletely. Sometimes editors build an AH for the current event, leaving out all of the older events that are templated on the talk page, and it's harder to go back and re-add the old events. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's worth mentioning too. Geometry guy 22:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

But that's why they need Dr pda's script :-) Not so they can add oldids, but so they can make sure they haven't missed prior events (because editors remove templates from talk pages, or get templates wrong). Dr pda gives you a doublecheck that you've gotten everything, and that the talk page is templated correctly. Gimmetrow frequently has to manually intervene to correct these kinds of issues; when he gets to a FAC closing, runs the script, finds that ah is out of sync with everything the script returns, he has to stop and re-do everything. Stalls the bot :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I hope GA will calm down next week, and I can make a post. Geometry guy 19:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Since we may be making some adjustments (mostly timing of bot runs, since Gimmetrow has understandably expressed that the irregularity of promotions is a drain on him), we may want to see how things settle in. I still have a list of items about GA processes that confuse me, so when it's time to put that together (not now!), maybe that can be helpful. Once things settle with the bot issues, I may have more time to type that up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of my comments re Brenda Song

I really resent that. You could have at least put them on the talk page. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I can, or you can put them on the talk page. Which would you prefer? Geometry guy 22:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism GAR

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Messianic Judaism/2 - properly this time . -- Avi (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks: I've watchlisted it. Note that you can still delist articles as an individual editor, as long as you follow the delisting guidelines and leave a review on a review page. In this case, however, because you have been actively involved in the article, it was very good judgement to open a community GAR instead. I hope it will improve the article. All the best, Geometry guy 19:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

CAIN

You seemed to suggest there might be something wrong with http://cain.ulst.ac.uk as a reference? A well established university project is surely a worthy source?--ZincBelief (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not specifically question the reliability of any source. In my view the reliability of a source is not an absolute, but is connected with the information it is sourcing. So a news site can source recent news, but isn't so good for history and analysis. Concerning http://cain.ulst.ac.uk, I think this is a great site. However, the main references to this site are actually to published articles. You should check the published articles and then reference them directly. The website can then be used (as a url=) to provide a weblink to the published articles. I hope that helps, but can give examples in other articles if it is not clear. Geometry guy 20:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

specialist peer-review needed

Hello,

I noticed your name in the PR list.

Can you take a look at this talk page, Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Islamic Golden Age/archive1 please?

The article makes lots of claims that need to be assessed.

Thank you very much.

—Cesar Tort 17:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Words to avoid

Hello, Your edit[1] removed the Article structure section.

{{Criticism-section}}, WP:NPOV WP:STRUCTURE[2], and WP:CRIT link to that content.

In the edit summary, you wrote in part: "... thoroughly covered by WP:NPOV." Wikipedia:NPOV#Article structure points to the removed section rather than reiterates it.

Suggestions? Thanks. -- davidz (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at expanding WP:NPOV#Article structure so that it covers the same ground. I hope these edits or something like them will stick. I suggest that WP:CRIT and the template documentation of {{Criticism-section}} avoid wholesale quotes of policy/guidelines since the latter are constantly subject to edits. The quotes are out of date even with respect to the version I removed. It is better to link and paraphrase, in my view. Anyway, thanks for pointing this out. Geometry guy 12:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for a nice synthesis that helps clarify the section and a quicker and tidier solution than I expected. It does make more sense in NPOV than in Words to avoid. I'll refrain from the discussion or go carefully because of this tedious discussion about Obsession. You might also want to see the discussions that led to that section: Criticism and controversy sections (unpleasant reading).

The quotes help provide context without having to follow links. And without the quotes I wouldn't have noticed the discrepancy. Thanks. -- davidz (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

GAR Archive 40

Hi mate, for some reason the Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_40 isn't working - I've waited for over a day and it doesn't seem like whichever bot you've got set up to fix things is fixing them. Could you please have a look at it? Cheers, Malkinann (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. Geometry guy 02:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Color scheme

Your posts at the RCC FAC mention a color scheme, but I'm getting no color scheme ? Confused. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see inline that you added fonts, but they don't come through on IE7 (I believe the most common browser?). Can you switch to red sample, green sample, etc., or is it only me? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I will only do this on the talk page, so you can exercise your prerogative to find a general browser friendly version if you think that is appropriate. Geometry guy 22:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, G guy, please speak techno-dummy to me so I can follow :-) Is it only my browser? I'm getting no colors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, but I don't know how to fix it for general users. Have you had font problems in other cases? Geometry guy 23:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of; but maybe there have always been things in color I don't see? I dunno. Well, don't mind me, but I don't know if other readers are seeing all the work you're putting in to that section, or if it's only me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Still no colors: [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And {{color|red|sample red}} is so much easier :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope more people will be able to see them now that the html is well-formed. That you can't surprises me: your own signature contains Georgia, using font tags. Geometry guy 06:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've used the color template now: I hope I haven't made any mistakes. I've also tested whether the 3 digit vs 6 digit color code is an issue for you. Geometry guy 22:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I still need to figure out how to resolve this: you've put all that work into highlighting examples of WP:WTA, but no one who needs to see the examples can see the examples. Would you like for me to correct it on the FAC? If you tell me what colors each font code corresponds to, I can edit your post for you to use the {{color template. Without that, I'm afraid your examples aren't being viewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've got color :-) Perhaps a key at the top? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've got color now ... but I don't know what the three different colors represent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added a key in a minimal way so that subsequent edits are not distorted by the change. Geometry guy 23:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Closure of WP:GEOBOT

Regrettably I have come to inform you, that this bot project will not go into operation and therefore the project will be closing down. Thanks everybody for their time and support but there is a clear reason why it failed. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Template help

Geometry guy, if you have a moment I would appreciate some help on a template issue; I've done very little with templates. I am working on Acid dissociation constant, which has a navbox near the top: Template:chemical equilibria. Graham87, who is blind, commented on the accessibility of the article here at Sandy's request. The article has changed since then, and there is now only one navbox at the top. However, we have not yet addressed Graham's request for the navbox to be hideable. Is this something you could show me how to do? Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Does the edit I made do what you want? See the diff for how to do it. There are other variations (e.g. the template can be initially collapsed by adding the word "collapsed" to the class). Geometry guy 17:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That was it; thanks. I will check with Graham on whether it would be better if it began collapsed; I think probably not, though. Mike Christie (talk)

GA reform

Shwmai Gguy, it's been a while ;) I seem to have been spending all my available time copyediting recently (the next person who posts a copyedit request on my talk page will get blocked), so I've been a little out of touch with GA... and a week's holiday last week hasn't helped. From some of the posts I've seen around I've clearly missed one or two things(!), but I've sworn off most copyediting for a while and am trying to pick up the baton again (or at least find where I left it). Anyhow, I had a chat with Gwinva a while ago regarding the proposed GA reform, which seemed to have quietly expired over the summer hols - in retrospect it probably wasn't the best time to raise that kind of issue with so many editors away, so we thought about resurrecting it around now. I'm wondering what you think, being more in touch with the current climate at GA. If you think it's worth doing, I was thinking about: 1. notifying the original contributors to the debate to get their views; 2. seeing if we could get something in the GA newsletter to garner wider interest this time; and 3. framing it as a support/oppose/neutral type debate... which I know isn't what we originally wanted, but might at least get some participation and make gauging a consensus possible. I'd be interested in your views... All the best, EyeSerene^talk 19:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a very good idea, but I suggest waiting at least a week before taking it up. Geometry guy 22:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, will do. EyeSerene^talk 12:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and put something together over the weekend then. For reasons best known (and perhaps kept) to themselves, I've been coopted by MilHist to help fill the shoes of a retired coordinator, so I can see my free wikitime fast disappearing over the horizon, but I won't really be taking up the position until after Christmas so now would be the time to try and put this to rest one way or another ;) EyeSerene^talk 21:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC) (edit) Ha, just noticed my "I've sworn off most copyediting for a while" comment in my earlier post. That didn't last long :P EyeSerene^talk 21:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. Anyway, good. Let me know if I can help out in any way (other than contributing to the discussion, which I will do anyway!). Geometry guy 22:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, thanks. Your support and advice is, as always, much appreciated. EyeSerene^talk 22:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment On Jimbo's Page

Hiya. Just a note, but if you go to your preferences under "gadgets" there is a check box to remove the banner. I totally agree it's far too "in your face" and should have a simple "hide" button that fully removes it though. Pedro :  Chat  11:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Pedro. It is not as bad as last year's ticker, at least. Geometry guy 11:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems I'm not the only one who finds the guy a disappointment Count Blofeld 13:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Who Would Have Thought It?

Gguy, greetings and hope all's well.

I note that you've kindly watch-listed Who Would Have Thought It?. The team working on this article has been rather short-handed... the third of their number has gone rather AWOL from all school-related business, leaving the two remaining ones (who are hard-working and organized) in a bit of a bind. There are some rather obvious things that still need doing to the article before it can go up to GAN, but I'm writing to see if you could perhaps drop a note of encouragement on the article talk page and/or their personal talk pages. Any aid you could give them would be much appreciated! I have high hopes of these two (who remind me of the group that worked on The General in His Labyrinth, as it happens), but your friendly voice may be just the tonic they need at this point. Many thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope my comments will help, but I've noticed a strong tendency towards literal quotation among this class that I don't remember noticing in the spring. Is this an over-emphasis on verifiability perhaps? Geometry guy 23:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Geometry Guy,

Thank you so much for your support and contribution to our group. Your comments were most insightful and you are right about us hesitation in approaching the plot summary. It is quite a challenge to summarize a 300 page story in 500 words. I was wondering, how appropriate would it be to include the ending? Or should it just be hinted? We currently have a banner on our plot summary which says that we should ‘focus discussing the work’ instead of ‘reiterating the plot’

Also, could you please tell me more about literal quotes and what qualifies as such. I am guessing that paraphrasing the literal quotes then citing the author would be better?

And when there are multiple viewpoints on a certain theme, do we present all of them?

Thanks again, --Nicolecruz (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your support, your comments were definitely helpful in guiding us the towards the right way!I thought that quotes would help us make our work more credible and hadn't considered paraphrasing. I was wondering if it is better that we have no literal quotes AT ALL? --Annac89 (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello both, and a warm welcome to my talk page! Let me attempt to provide suggestions in response to your queries.

• Literal quotation just means quotation, i.e., using direct quotes from the sources. The "literal" is there for emphasis and to distinguish it from indirect quotation, i.e., paraphrasing what the source says and attributing it.
• For most source material, it is much better to paraphrase and then cite the author. However direct quotes can be useful when the source is asserting an opinion, or engaging in analysis. In this case, we don't want Wikipedia to assert the opinion, so we need either to attribute (or "qualify") the opinion (using a phrase such as "According to X,"), or use a direct quote, or both. Direct quotation is probably not useful in the plot summary. It is rarely useful in the lead. It can be useful in sections like "Critical reception", "Genre" or "Themes".
• You should include the ending if it is important to the plot or story arc. Wikipedia is not censored: plot summaries inevitably contain spoilers. See WP:SPOILER.
• When there are multiple viewpoints on themes, genre etc. then you should include enough representative examples to cover each view, giving more weight to views which are more common. Fringe views usually don't need to be covered. I heartily recommend reading the neutral point of view policy. This is one of Wikipedia's defining characteristics, and I have been known to get quite passionate defending and upholding it :-)
• If you are having trouble summarizing the plot in 500 words, go back to my "write-write-write" suggestion and write a 2500 word plot summary. Then precis it (precis is one of the most useful skills taught in English lessons). I can help with that.

All of the above suggestions are based on the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its role is to present knowledge, not develop an argument or take a position. Geometry guy 19:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For your vote at Roman Catholic Church. I am sorry to inform you that we failed FAC but will again be at peer review in a few weeks to sort things out. Hopefully we will make it through next time. We will be contacting all supporters and opposers of the article when we open the next peer review to hopefully get all issues addressed and hashed out before the next FAC try. Thanks again for your time and attention to this important article. NancyHeise ^talk 01:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this gracious post. You are an admirable editor. I will endeavour to continue to assist. I hope that together we can get the balance of the prose right. Geometry guy 18:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

you love this stuff, don't you? ;)

[4]

I have to say I'm not sure what I think. I may be grudgingly coming around to it... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL! This is a leisure activity for me, so I am partly playing. Like many students (or Professors with overdue fines? :)) I don't go to the library that often, especially not in the evenings, so this Google books stuff, for me, is so far primarily a way of keeping track of whether the quotes are accurate and well reflected in the text. The edits of the four of us can easily erode faithfulness to the sources: you are busy with multiple articles, I'm just doing this for fun in evenings and weekends, and Anna and Nicole are on a steep learning curve.

The Google books solution isn't always available, of course, but where it is, it provides (I think) a great solution to the direct quotation temptation, because we can link to the quote in support of encyclopedic text.

At the moment the real problem is that the text is not encyclopedic. If I were an uninvolved GAN reviewer right now, I would leave a careful review and fail without a hold. The prose is not neutral or encyclopedic, the plot and character summaries are too long, I find verifiability concerns when I look at detail, there is too much direct quotation, the article is not broad, and it fails WP:LEAD and WP:WTA. I'm not very exacting when it comes to GA criteria, compared with more exacting team members who have FA in mind (Awadewit, Mike, Moni3,...) but complying, even in my relaxed GA interpretation, with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR is the hardest part of making a good article. It is likely we will have a breathing space before an uninvolved reviewer comes along. In this case, I hope for it! Indeed I hope that you will be able to rate the article as WP:NRG (and maybe WP:NV) B-class before that happens. It isn't yet, in my view, and I believe from your talk page comments, that you would agree. I wish I had time and energy to comment on these concerns in more detail, or perhaps help to address them. Maybe this weekend... In the meantime, my Google books links are just small steps in this direction, which may be removed if they ultimately no longer serve a useful role. Geometry guy 00:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Heresy!

I'm positive working a Carry On reference into one of Jon's highbrow literary projects is, at the very least, sacrilegious (if not downright blasphemy). My hat's off to you, Sir! ...though you'd better hope that one passes Awadewit by; last time we all did this she ended up getting into Dr. Who :D EyeSerene^talk 23:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Category help

Do you happen to know much about categories? User:Petergans, the main editor on acid dissociation constant, which I've been working on, would like to create a category; see his note at the end of Talk:Acid dissociation constant, which links to a sandbox of his. I don't know enough about categories to know how to do it or if this is a suitable use of categories -- any chance you could chip in and answer his questions, and perhaps create the category if appropriate? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for creating this category. However, This is only part of what I wanted. Looking at the category:acids as a model, it is the first line

{{Commons cat|Acids}}

that I can't figure out. I can't see how to use the commons cat template because I can't find where the data (links) are stored, presumably somewhere in Commons. User:Petergans/sandbox has a provisional list of the links that I would like to include on the category page in the same way that category:acids apparently creates an alphabetical list. As I will probably need to edit the list, I will need to know where it is stored. Your help is much appreciated. Petergans (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Check {{Commons cat}}: all it does is produces the little box with the link to Commons. There's no point in putting such a box on this Category:Equilibrium chemistry. Articles in the category are listed automatically: you just have to put them in the category (!!) like I did here. Now go forth and multiply! Cheers, Geometry guy 19:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Osteochondritis dissecans

Hi, Geometry guy. Please feel free to add further review comments at Talk:Osteochondritis dissecans. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The flurry of edits!

I can't say I was any different in high school... but I'm still surprised at the level of procrastination. The dead line was set at 11-19 for requesting peer review.

Can I email you for consultation off the radar? --JimmyButler (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. My email is enabled. Geometry guy 21:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

GA reform redux

OK, I've spammed the reform page contributors, and left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Reform#GA reform redux. We'll see what everyone thinks. EyeSerene^talk 13:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

CF templates

Someone pointed out to me that this entry is broken in User:VeblenBot/C/Wikipedia featured list candidates:

{{CF/Wikipedia featured list candidates|Bookseller/Diagram Prize for Oddest Title of the Year|1|2008-11-17T16:57:18Z|extra={{{extra|}}}}}

• 17/11/2008, 16:57:18: Bookseller/Diagram Prize for Oddest Title of the Year
  

I tracked it down to the use of titleparts in Template:CF/Content review/Raw. I'm not sure what the original motivation was for titleparts there so I am reluctant to change it. Do you remember why it was needed? — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It is needed for peer review and GAR, where the category contains the review pages, and so the title of the article needs to be extracted. I've forked the template at Template:CF/Content review/Raw0 and adjusted the title parts so that the entry is unbroken.

There's no real need for Template:CF/Content review/Raw0, Template:CF/Content review/List0, Template:CF/Wikipedia featured list candidates, Template:CF/Wikipedia featured article candidates, Template:CF/Wikipedia featured topic candidates and Template:CF/Wikipedia featured topic candidate main articles to be so complicated: they first produce the review page from the article name, then extract the article name from the review page! Geometry guy 20:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Locally connected space

Dear Geometry guy,

There is currently a peer review for locally connected space. Could you please participate (if possible)? I know that your Wikitime is limited but any (minor) comments would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for your help.

Topology Expert (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Locally connected space/archive1. I will take a look. Geometry guy 20:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sandra Cisneros

Thanks for your input - although there are a few names on the team list, I think the others have been busy with other articles, so another pair of eyes is very welcome. Incidentally, I've just asked Jackyd101 if he doesn't mind doing the GA review as I think we're about ready. That should happen over the next couple of days, so fingers crossed... ;) EyeSerene^talk 11:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I meant to ask you... any ideas why the reflist on Sandra Cisneros was, when in three columns, collapsing the References section when a link was clicked in the third column? I asked jb, and he discovered the fix, but we've no idea why it was happening, although I did put forward one theory... EyeSerene^talk 11:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm not being much help, only making trouble :-) Ah well, such is wiki-life! Geometry guy 22:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Your careful oversight really is very welcome. No matter how good a copyeditor anyone believes themselves to be (and I wouldn't claim to be that good!), I find the single most useful form of help comes from someone who's prepared to double-check and criticise. The NRG students are still a little hesitant to do that, even when they're right and I'm wrong... but you're not ;) EyeSerene^talk 14:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

your input/musings solicited.

• User talk:Ling.Nut/WikiProjectGurukul Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Citation Barnstar
		This Barnstar is in recognition of your devotion to ensuring Wikipedia is properly cited, and improving those citations. In particular, your spending two hours improving Garry Moore. Keep up the good work. TheHYPO (talk) 07:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Any chance you could comment on the article for the reassessment? Agreeing with my assessment is optional :-) Geometry guy 21:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh

Whoops... Didn't know that the quotes were different. However, citations at the end of each sentence are not required - FAC people (read: Tony) have removed refs of mine in USS Nevada (BB-36) that were after each sentence in favor of them being at the end of each para (done per WP:OVERLINK)... Just thought that I'd let you know. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. If the entire paragraph only uses a single page from a single source, then I would agree with this. However, if there is more than one such source, how do readers know which sentences are covered by which sources? WP:OVERLINK does not refer to citations or footnotes anywhere, whatever Tony may say: it is about wikilinks. Tony has rather strong views about overlinking. Geometry guy 21:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Maths rating template

Firstly, sorry if my actions have annoyed you. This was not my intention. Hopefully I can address some of your concerns. I presented my proposals and started a discussion on them on 17th November. I did not change the template until three days later on 20th November and when it seemed the discussion was not going to attract any more comments. You chose not to take part in the discussion, or maybe you did not notice it; probably I should have drawn your attention to it as I knew you were one of the main people involved in assessing mathematics articles. Anyhow I think that joining the discussion and giving your thoughts would be more constructive than just reverting the changes. I believe there are advantages to converting the banner and to conforming slightly more with other WikiProjects - these are mentioned in the proposals. Best regards, MSGJ 19:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure your intentions are good but am grateful for the apology anyway.

I didn't notice the discussion until now: I am very busy IRL and am concentrating on other things onwiki. I noticed the discussion because of Talk:Locally connected space, where your version of the template placed the page into a redlinked category (I guess it was Category:Topology-field mathematics articles).

Your work is in the edit history, and can be reintroduced if there is consensus for it. The discussion so far has hardly generated enthusiasm for the change and your characterization of Bplus as a GA-Class anomaly is not likely to help in winning support. The icons are a nice idea, though. Best wishes, Geometry guy 20:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well Bplus-Class is an anomaly. I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise as maths is the only project which uses it. Although I would recommend trying to standardise our classes as I think uniformity makes assessment clearer, I recognise that I am about the only person who thinks this or cares enough about it :) I still think it is wrong to categorise articles as GA unless they are good articles; this seems obvious. I was interested to read some of your thoughts about this on another page somewhere. (You have assessed 2000 maths articles? That's quite amazing.) Anyway I will not propose to convert the banner again unless/until it supports project-specific classes such as Bplus. Thank you for recognising that my intentions are good. I certainly did not mean to push things through without consensus; that is why I initiated the discussion. So I still feel your comment on "unilateral intervention" was a bit unfair. I look forward to working with you more in the future. Martin 16:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it was a bit unfair and I am happy to apologise, as you have so graciously done. Bplus was a compromise found at a time of intense hostility between the Maths and GA WikiProjects. Thankfully, GA has matured considerably in the last 18 months, and many members of the Maths WikiProject now have a more positive attitude towards GA, so this issue could certainly be revisited. My own view, as you probably know, is that GA-Class itself is an anomaly which causes many headaches for the GA WikiProject. I also look forward to working with you on issues like this. Geometry guy 19:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Osteochondritis dissecans

Seeing as you are apart of the FA-team, I thought I would come to you for suggestions on how to improve my article. I believe it's cited quite well and it covers the topic with an adequate amount of information, however it's prose may not be of professional standard. If you could help me with this in any way: pointing out issues, editing in your free time - anything - I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you again for your help in attaining GA, there was quite a rejoice at the school! Cheers! Food_Puma 00:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch

Thank you for noticing that Abian's paper was in fact referred to in locally connected space. I had entirely missed the section on applications of local connectedness, which must have been added somewhat recently (of course, it is not good that this section is buried somewhere in the middle of such a long article). To my mind the result of Abian seems rather like a proposition about local connectedness than an application, and I agree that it may not belong in an ultimate version of the article. Further suggestions or help on editing this article would be most welcome: as you can see from the talk page, I identified it as in serious need of editing some time ago, but the changes required are so numerous and substantial as to be somewhat daunting. Plclark (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Need admin type help

Hey Geometry Guy. I know we don't really know each other, but you're one of the few admins I know of, let alone know, so I'm sorry if it seems rude of me to just come here and ask a favour. Recently I was added to a list of people to help users create accounts at WP:ACC. Everything was working fine until I tried doing this from uni, where the IP's there are mostly blocked from editing and creating accounts. It turns out that the account creation blocking holds even if I'm logged in, and so I asked User:Stwalkerster, who granted me access to begin with, if anything could be done about it. He/she mentioned that I just need a flag and I'm set, but they're fairly busy at the moment and said my best bet is to just ask someone else. The discussion (it's short) is at User_talk:Stwalkerster#ACC_issues for you to verify, and I was asked to point whoever I ask to this. The account creator flag is another that would help me out too (details are on Stwalkerster's talk page), so if possible, would you be able to help me out? If not that's fine. Cheers, Ben (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this kind of thing, but you are in my view a trusted user, so I'm going to set the IPBE flag for you. I don't see the need for the account creator flag, since you are unlikely to need to create more than 6 accounts every 24 hours, and if your account were compromised someone could cause serious problems by automatically creating many accounts. Geometry guy 20:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I have already hit the 6 accounts in one day limit, but that's fine, it's not as big a problem as not being able to make any. Thanks for your help. Cheers, Ben (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)