User talk:Geometry guy/Archive 19

Re Cam's RfA

Thanks for your reply (not worth posting this there) - just to assure you that I do appreciate your reasoning, and the respect and admiration is mutual ;) I still think you're perhaps being a little harsh in your opposition, but your opinion carries a lot of weight with me and I've yet to see you make an ill-considered judgement. Given that it looks like he'll pass, I'm sure Cam will take on board the various suggestions to proceed slowly and carefully with his use of the tools, and with what I know of him, and Roger and Kirill there to help him out, you shouldn't be unduly concerned. EyeSerene^talk 11:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope that my oppose of an editor I respect might serve a wider purpose. RfA has a reputation for being a popularity contest. I would like instead for editors to vote based on principles concerning what adminship entails. Some do, but many do not. I have struck my oppose on the grounds that good judgement and trustworthiness are more important than experience of conflict or adminstrative roles.

However, I am disappointed that Cam has not contributed to the RfA since 7 January. It gives the impression that once the RfA was in the bag, contributing to it was a waste of time. I consider that a very bad sign, and hope for the sake of all those supporting, that this bad sign proves to be spurious.

I do hope Cam will take the criticism on board and draw on the expertise of other Wikipedians when he gets into scrapes. In that respect I am not concerned. I am concerned, as are many others, about the integrity of RfA. Geometry guy 21:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

True, RfA has it's problems as a system, although I've got no proposed solutions :P I only drop by there rarely - normally when I happen across a mention of a live RfA on a talk-page and I know the candidate - but it's a minefield of negotiating Wikipedia's ever-shifting mores, policies, and editor alliances, and it seems a candidate who fails one week could just as easily pass the next. I suppose that's an argument to myself to get more involved, but that will have to be for another day ;)

Regarding the lack of response, naturally I can't speak for Cam but I know I was really (perhaps stupidly) apprehensive of posting replies on my RfA, having read somewhere that it's seen as argumentative and can tank a candidacy.

One other unrelated subject while I'm here - at what point do you think it's worth closing the Open Review proposal? It looks like it's run out of steam and we'll be stuck with the status quo, and I'm not sure it's worth keeping open much longer. Your thoughts? EyeSerene^talk 17:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm also a pretty occasional RfA contributor, for similar reasons. The best candidates respond to opposes without arguing against them. There is such a candidate right now. But surely Cam will make an excellent and well supported admin, hence my lack of concern.

Regarding Open Review, the obvious thing to do (on my mind since the New Year) is to start a new section "Open Review: where to go from here" (or something like that). It seems to me that the main objection is the requirement to remain open for 3 days. I'm sympathetic to that objection, because I think GAN has too many rules and arbitrary numbers (bean counting) which simply don't reflect reviewer practice. So let's drop it.

The quality of reviews has gone up enormously since the introduction of review subpages, with GAR traffic falling accordingly. Reviewers have multiple styles and many creatively adapt their style to each article's needs. There is no point in prescribing so much at GAN, except as a way of guiding newcomers towards best practice. The "open review attitude" can help with that, but maybe it only needs incremental change. Geometry guy 21:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd noticed that RfA and have been popping in from time to time while making up my mind ;) Your advice on the GA Reform proposal is very welcome - I'd actually been thinking something similar, but was unsure if it would come across as a bit WP:DEADHORSE ;) I'll give it some thought over the next day or so though, and post something up (it's about as clear a 'no consensus' as I've seen!) EyeSerene^talk 19:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What bothers me most at the moment is that the GAN guidelines don't really reflect actual practice. Open review (minus the 3 day minimum) is closer to what reviewers actually do, namely take the lead in their reviews and carry them out in the best interests of the article and the project

Meanwhile, can I ask a favour: could you take a look at WP:Good article reassessment/Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008/1 and comment on the reassessment? There's a shortage of independent reviewers in GARs at the moment, and this one could use another opinion. Geometry guy 19:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that came out in the debate. It's heartening to see from a quality perspective, but I do think we're losing an opportunity to further enhance the quality of GA by dropping the minimum time proposal. I don't like doing things purely for show, but I think in some ways what we're seen to be doing is as important as what we actually do, and (as with any behind-the-scenes activity on Wikipedia) I occasionaly notice little signs that some reviewers have forgotten we only exist to provide a service, and only have legitimacy as long as article-writers continue to find the GA 'brand' credible...

Anyhoo, I'll be more than happy to drop in on that GAR (sometime tomorrow probably). Any request from you is always welcome, and I'd be most put out if you ever even thought twice about asking ;) All the best, EyeSerene^talk 20:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. My only grounds for thinking twice were the length of the reassessment, but your solution to provide a fresh review was an excellent one. It echos the concerns raised by SilkTork and myself.

As for open review, the minimum time could become a recommendation rather than a requirement, just as we are (very) flexible about the length of holds. Geometry guy 20:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA

I responded to your interesting questions over on my RfA. Cheers!

CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Jennifer Brunner

Are we waiting for a bot to finish administrating Talk:Jennifer Brunner?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it was an oversight on my part. Thanks for drawing my attention to it: it should be fixed now. Geometry guy 22:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

I agreed to review Janszoon voyage of 1606 for GA. However, I find the embedded geographical templates in the body of the ariticle terminally distracting and have asked the editor to remove them. Do you have the same reaction as I do, and can an article pass GA with so many embedded geographical templates? Thanking you in advance for your advice. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have had the same reaction, but think that the decision to footnote them was a good choice. I see no decisive GA objection to the templates: one would either have to argue that they are original research, or unnecessary detail, both of which are a bit of a stretch. Geometry guy 13:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think footnotes is a good choice also and I am glad the editor came up with that solution. I had considered reviewing the article previously, but those geographical templates deterred me. If I don't know the answer to something, my way is to avoid the article! Thanks for your answer. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Daddy Yankee

Thanks for the note, I will work with the issues. Cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Knowing it might fail

Actually, I expected it to fail, but like I said, there aren't many people who IMO have the experience, trust, and interest to run. But the third reason I expected it to fail, which I didn't mention in the RfB, was that I know that people would oppose for my role in RfA's. Like I said, I am not going to harbor any ill will towards anyboy (unless they go over the line in making it personal, which I haven't seen.) Right now, I don't know if there will be an crat2. We'll see... a lot depends on where/what I end up doing next.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 18:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A warm welcome to my talk page. We first interacted at GAR (if I recall rightly) and it was a pleasure working with you. I particularly recall the GAR for Holocaust denial in which you, EyeSerene (another editor I greatly respect) and myself were instrumental not only in addressing neutral point of view concerns about the article, but also putting in place a structure for the lead which made the article more encyclopedic, more effective, and easier to defend against POV pushers. I revisited the article recently for unrelated reasons and was pleased to find this structure basically intact.

Wikipedia has changed a lot in the last two years. It is no longer de rigueur to vilify it as unreliable and focused on pop culture, even if these are still both statistically true. Instead it has become a major reference worldwide. What Wikipedia has to say on a topic really can matter and so it has become more important that we get it right. Wikipedia's neutral point of view, which presents material in an encyclopedic way, and represents other viewpoints fairly and without bias, has become increasingly important. Yet it is, in my view, poorly understood. Well meaning editors want to use Wikipedia articles to "set the record straight" or "say it like it is". It is a massive challenge to explain to these editors that they are shooting themselves in the foot, that it is far more effective to disengage, describe, and let the reader decide. We need to find better ways to convey that message. Geometry guy 20:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, the Holocaust Denial page... nothing like being called racist and anti-semites because we were seeking a more encyclopedic article. Thankfully, after the allegations of bad faith subsided we were able to make real changes.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 02:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, helping the encyclopedia can be a thankless task sometimes, and advocating an encyclopedic approach in the face of NPOV issues is one such case. But I think it is rewarding in its own way. I commend and admire the graciousness of your RfB withdrawal. Another thankless task perhaps, but even though I opposed, I would like to thank you for putting yourself forwards. I was also happy to see that this RfB was mostly a civil and constructive affair. Perhaps (in a different way) it might inspire real changes, who knows? Geometry guy 20:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I honestly went into the RfB knowing the basis that I would get opposes, and I decided before running that I wouldn't run if I couldn't handle rejection. Eg I wasn't going to pack up my bags and go home. I look at it as an editor review. There was a lot of constructive criticism intermeshed with some generic criticism... now is my chance to take what was said, and put it to good use. (Plus, it would have been terribly hypocritical of me to get upset with people who oppose me, because I've always said my opposes are not personal.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 20:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your honest approach was clear from the beginning, and was one reason I thanked you for putting yourself forward. Putting it to good use (not necessarily just as an editor review) was also exactly what I meant above. All the best, Geometry guy 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

AP Bio Project--> Banker horse

Hey, I was wondering if you could stop by the Banker horse article. It was recently promoted to GA and I am trying to get some more input before possibly pursuing FA. It needs some work with prose and the like... If you don't have the time/interest, would you mind passing along the name of a good c/e?--Yohmom (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it. The article needs work, but you have the good fortune to have Malleus contributing. For copyediting, there are many options: among the editors I know well, the ones who are most dedicated to MoS and prose copyediting are Dan and Jennavecia. Geometry guy 23:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Geometry_guy

Bravo. I was going to comment, but I found that you'd said everything that needed to be said. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tim and a warm welcome here, as always. A comment like this from a splendiferous editor like yourself is a great tonic when Wikipedia is going through a somewhat fractious moment. Geometry guy 22:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

For the support on WT:GAN, I hadn't realised that quick failing at GAN had become that contentious. I felt I left a comprehensive review highlighting the issues, and if consensus is that I was wrong, I can take my lumps. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that for some time there has been a certain tension between the lazy approach "either quick fail with almost no review or put on hold" and the responsible approach "Leave a decent review for any reasonable good faith nomination, and put on hold according to reviewer judgment". A number of editors of the latter viewpoint want to move away from "quick failing" (whatever that means) to failing without a hold, which is what you did in an exemplary fashion in this case. (There was nothing "quick" about it.) Geometry guy 00:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to get back to GAN for at least three months (FAC eats a lot of my time..) and knew I was picking up a possibly contentious one, but really, I hate seeing some poor nominator wait two months for a review. Someone's got to do the difficult ones, but I think I'll leave the other ones from that set for someone else... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said on at WT:GAN, some of the others are actually possible AfD candidates. The one you reviewed probably isn't. Geometry guy 00:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You were brave to pick that one up Ealdgyth. I looked at the oldest on the list a week or so ago and decided to go instead for Andover F.C.. Much safer. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I get my moments of bravery. They usually don't last long though. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Rest of the Story: Giggy

Hey Geometry, I meant to say this during my RfB, but forgot. In your rationale to oppose, you indicated that I thought Giggy should be an admin despite his revealing somebody's personal information last year---and my belief that he should be an admin. I still do think he should be an admin (although I think his attitude towards WP has soured some over the past few months.) Anyways, I wanted to give you a little bit of history that you probably are unaware of. Yes, I know that the person whose personal information he revealed was mine. While I can't say that I am happy about it, I am not terribly upset either. First, let's remember the context. It happened immediately after one of the most dispicable events to ever happen on WP. He was pissed and had every right to be pissed. The fact that he did so shouldn't come as a surprise because what happened then was outside of the norm. You know that. What you don't know, is that shortly after he revealed my information he sent me an apologetic email. I don't have it anymore, but it basically went to the effect of, "Balloonman, I owe you a huge apology. I blew it. I responded negatively, and revealed some of your personal information. If I could take it back I would. Can you forgive me?" Again, that aren't his exact words, but it's the gist. He was apologizing to me, while he had every right to be utterly pissed at me. In other words, I didn't find out about the incident via his RfA, but rather from him. While he did make a mistake in revealing my information, he did apologize, and we reconciled via email almost immediately---although I will be honest, I couldn't believe that he actually meant it. It took me months before I really believed that he forgave me, but the way he handled my betrayal, will forever have me in the Giggy camp. He showed me a level of maturity I wasn't expecting.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Balloonman, I think it was good judgment not to bring this up in your RfB, and also good of you to mention it now. Obviously I had a pretty clear idea that you were the person whose privacy was breached (it would have been inappropriate of me to speculate during your RfB). That does make Giggy's appalling misstep a little more forgivable: to err is human, after all. However, revealing personal information is a very big deal: that he did so at one moment and apologized the next shows that Giggy knew right from wrong and realized he had done wrong; it is not evidence of maturity. Your comments also do not address my concerns about the way he blanked the RfA, threatened to leave, and rapidly removed discussion of his misstep from his talk page. Intentionally or not, he avoided being held to account. On the other hand, the fact that he quickly forgave you for that RfA is a sign of maturity, and is something I will bear in mind.

Giggy is a valuable contributor to the encyclopedia and I hope to be able to support his RfA one day. His is a case where the passage of time will probably be reflected by increased maturity in his approach to Wikipedia: the changes in attitude you mention may indicate that. I understand that the reconciliation impressed you, but I think that feelings of guilt about the incident may be colouring your judgment about Giggy. I can understand that you want to put right what you did wrong. Supporting him for adminship now does not seem to me to be the right way to do that. In your position, I would recuse.

Again, though, many thanks for commenting on this here. Geometry guy 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Vector space lead section

A request for the widely renowned lead section connoisseur (I see Lead section guy is still available ;): In the vector space FAC, I'm somehow grappling with comments that request a level of explanation in the lead section that I somehow feel is inappropriate and/or impossible. I'd appreciate if you could have a look (not as somebody who knows what a vector space is, but rather somebody having some experience with balancing guidelines such as WP:NOT PAPER, WP:LEAD and others against the reality of understanding "esoteric" [as a reviewer puts it] mathematical topics). I think I'm benevolent but I'm approaching my wit's ends. Perhaps some fresh input could help. Thanks, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks (on behalf of all readers) for the amazing work you have done on this article. I don't know if my input will help. I think editors may have missed the point of WP:LEAD, but there are other issues to work on in the article. It is hard to write a good lead before the body is good: in particular the motivation section needs work, in my view. Geometry guy 23:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As you will have seen, I have withdrawn the nomination; I just thought, given the haste inherent to the process, the improvement requests would require a level commitment exceeding reasonable limits; but I'll try to work on the issues in the sequel. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to pester me for further help and/or a copyedit before the next FAC. Geometry guy 14:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested

I have been reviewing Outliers (book) for GA and have complained about the repetitiousness. The editor has complied and, to some degree, cut it down. Now I can't tell if my irritation at the article is because the subject is a (to me) boring pop science book, or whether I am justified. It really is better now than previously. But I would appreciate your opinion on the article. Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 02:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I also found it rather bland. I read the article before reading your GAN review. I was struck by the overuse of quotation more than repetition. There may be a slight lack of focus and too much detail, but I wouldn't fail on 3b alone. However, the article does not meet WP:LEAD at the moment: the critical reception section is much more nuanced (and critical) than the summary of it in the lead. I would also question the sentence "When he remarked that all his books focus on singularities..." from the lead. In the body, the citation has AVBooks making this assertion, and Gladwell replying to it. Geometry guy 21:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And there was another instance in which an offhand remark by the author in answer to an interviewer's question was used to provide a thesis on the "concept of sociological phenomena" as described in The Wisdom of Crowds. I thought that taking it out of context like that was WP:SYN. Thanks for providing your assessment. Much appreciated! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think your decision to list as GA was correct. I agree with you that the "10,000 hour rule" is a simplistic and unoriginal concept (at least in broad terms), but that doesn't mean that the article shouldn't refer to it repeatedly. As an encyclopedia, we have a show-don't-tell approach. We describe the work, and reaction to the work, but don't react to it ourselves. This book evidently relies heavily on a bland new spin on an old idea, and the article should reflect the content of the book in its description of it. Intelligent readers like yourself may notice the blandness of the idea and react accordingly. For others, it may be a new and impressive. Wikipedia has done a service for them all. Geometry guy 19:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Model reviews

A couple of cases for "G'guy Adjudicates Regally", I think. The model reviews proposal already appears moribund - raised around 12 Jan, archived already! I think someone has to pick a few reviews in different subjects and from different reviewers, create a list / summary page for them (with comments like "easy pass", "pass after a lot of work", "didn't quite make it"), and then link it into the top and bottom of the Reviewer's Guide - I suggest both because some would-be reviewers will prefer examples first and others will prefer an overview first.

I also strongly feel that we need to do more to tell editors what's required of articles. Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles has the wrong title, its lead is skimpy and uninviting, and it uses too much WP:jargon. User:Jacklee/Writing good articles has the right tone and some good tips, but is visibly out of date in some respects. I suggest a group of 2-3 willing and fairly experienced reviewers should collaborate, comments should be invited at WT:GAN on the result, then we should incorporate it into the "How to nominate" panel at WP:GAN.

I know it's naughty of me to go through a back channel like this, but the recent discussions seem to produce more grumbles about our difficulties than action to mitigate them. I'd just do it myself if I weren't a relatively new kid on the block. On the other hand you have the status to make things happen. --Philcha (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(Stalker interjection) I think you're making some great contributions to the project, and you really shouldn't be hesitant about unarchiving threads if you think they got tucked away too soon - it's only a bot that does it, after all, based on the date of the last contribution. However, I'm wondering if you might like to resurrect your proposal in another venue. The working party reform proposal (at the top of the page) has clearly run out of steam, so I will very shortly be closing that thread and starting something along the lines of "Whither open reviews?" It seems to me that your proposal could be usefully discussed there, as a way of encouraging new reviewers and raising/maintaining review quality. What do you think? EyeSerene^talk 10:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Pleased to meet you, EyeSerene. I hope G'guy doesn't mind my responding here. What bothers me is that the "model reviews" proposal ran only from 8 Jan to 14 Jan 2008 - it was moribund when the bot archived it. Its not the only recent proposal that's slipped quietly away, with little comment or alternative proposals. I guess most members are too busy editing and reviewing. Meanwhile the backlog persists, augmented by inadequate articles nominated for review. That's why I think a more direct approach is required. --Philcha (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, it's a long, winding road to actually getting anything done sometimes, as many of us have discovered :P Although the open review proposal didn't go down as well as we had hoped, there are still constant complaints on the talk page about the system/reviewers/reviews etc - I find this slightly frustrating, because there seems to be general agreement that something should change, but no-one can agree on exactly what or how, and thus we always default to the unsatisfactory status quo. What I was thinking of was opening a new thread on the page, summarising the various suggestions for improvements we've had over recent times - including model reviews - and seeing if we can actually get some level of consensus to implement some of them. As I've mentioned in the past (possibly ad nauseum!), I don't think it's acceptable that we fail to address concerns raised from either within or outside the project... and then expect things like an article 'green dot' to be approved by the larger community. </rant> EyeSerene^talk 16:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if there was a possibiliy of there ever being a green dot, some may consider the various proposals for reform more seriously. But to be more serious myself, it's clear that any improvewments have to come from taking baby-steps. The dedicated review page was an unmitigated success, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's the other way round - if we dealt with the issues, we'd have more chance of getting a green dot. We already agree that:

• There are too many articles nominated that are a mile way from GA. The first step in dealing with that is easy - provide a really easy-to-understand guide to producing GAs, and make the recommendation to read that the first stpe in the advertised process.
• Need to attract more reviewers. Ideas:
  • More help for reviewers. The guide is OK, but needs to be supplemented with model reviews. I also think a facility to list recent GAs by subject will help both editors and reviewers (Matisse seconded that, she'd finding it helpful in reviewing articles in unfamiliar topics). We might consider listing recent FAs if there are no recent GAs in a sub-topic.
  • A template that adds "Congratulations, this article is now a GA. If you have had at least one other successful GA review, preferably with a different reviewer, please consider reviewing other articles for promotion to GA. (links to WP:GAN and reviewer's guide)". I'd include this template code in the HTML comments in the "start GA review" template.

Editors nominating like crazy but not reviewing. That's a tough one, as there are reasonable objections to most proposals - notably that peopel who are pressurised into reviewing are unlikely to do good reviews. --Philcha (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The green dot has become a religious issue Philcha, not worth wasting time even considering. There are many who feel so strongly about it that they would rather see the bronze star removed from FAs. Just the way it is. No possible improvements that we could make will change that. Doesn't mean that we ought not to be open about possible improvements, just that the green dot is a mirage. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This thread has been going swimmingly without the need for any adjudication on my part :) To keep it that way, I politely ask my welcome guests to steer away from the dot issue :) Geometry guy 18:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for my choice of example. You'd think a mathematician would appreciate tangents... EyeSerene^talk 19:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If "The g.... d.. has become a religious issue, ..., not worth wasting time even considering", then I fail to see how "Perhaps if there was a possibiliy of there ever being a g.... d.., some may consider the various proposals for reform more seriously". I hadn't even thought about spots before the eyes, and any way "A good article from Wikipedia,..." is more visible and intelligible. I'm much more concerned about improving the efficiency of the GA processes because that would benefit everyone. Various proposals have been made recently, some by me but in some cases after hints by others. Are there any defects in these, or are there superior or higher-priority alternatives? --Philcha (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, lets focus on efficiency and ideas to improve GA. (Aside: "A good article from Wikipedia" is only visible to logged in users with preferences set to display it.) But no apologies needed EyeSerene: as a geometer, I particularly appreciate tangents. Geometry guy 20:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Words of wisdom Malleus, as usual ;) You're right, separate review pages have worked well and driven up quality. As G'guy suggested somewhere above, it also looks like so-called 'quick-fails' are falling out of use, so we do seem to be moving in the right direction. EyeSerene^talk 17:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Review pages have been remarkably successful. One side-effect has been a drop in the use of community GAR, which I consider to be a good thing: most fails and delistings give good reasons and are not contested. By chance, I've also noticed that one experienced reviewer (not in present company), who considers quick-failing as an option, hasn't actually used it in nearly a year. Failing without a hold is fine, but failing a good faith nomination should, in my view, involve a review with specific suggestions for improvement, not just generic ones. I agree with Malleus that incremental change is the way to improve GA. Better and more visible advice for nominators, as Philcha proposes, would be one such step. I think WP:Reviewing good articles could also be improved to reflect current practice. Open review can be encouraged in small ways. Geometry guy 21:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. User talk discussions like this are valuable: they aren't a backchannel (unlike email or IRC) as they are visible to the community. I also encourage editors watchlisting this page to contribute to the discussion (hey it even saves me some work sometimes!) In short: welcome!

Yes, I rather like the model review idea as an incremental change. My philosophy is that the only possible justification for GA's existence is to drive up article quality (and as I've pointed out to a couple of people recently, even an assessment that ultimately fails - but has improved the article during the process - is a 'win' for Wikipedia in that sense). Everything else - the framework of incentives and processes we've put in place to make what we do attractive to article-writers (which would perhaps include the subject that shall not be named!) and operable for reviewers - is useful only as long as it serves our article-improvement function. That's why I don't see multiple noms or the backlog as particular issues, and don't buy into anything that would discourage editors from sending their articles our way. On the other hand, I very much support anything that makes it easier to review articles and will encourage new reviewers, but only if review quality is also improved or at least maintained. EyeSerene^talk 21:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Even the attempt to meet the GA criteria improves the quality of the encyclopedia, in an (hopefully) accessible way, whether or not all of those articles are ever submitted to GAN. I firmly believe that we're doing something fundamentally important with this GA project, but like anything it can always be improved. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I confess I hadn't thought about the pre-GA development process in that way, but you make a good point. I rather like the idea that GA can do its job merely by being aspirational. EyeSerene^talk 22:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

FA, which I also love, can seem very intimidating, not least in its prose requirements. GA has to occupy that middle ground, between "our very best work", and work that's achievable by the majority of us. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you both. Encouraging article quality improvement across the board is the raison d'etre of GA. Both GA and FA have an aspirational influence, but whereas FA provides an ultimate standard for the very best Wikipedia articles, GA is an incentive to improve the million or two articles that are currently woefully inadequate. To make that difference, we need to encourage GA growth — and it is growing. There are pressures to raise the GA quality threshold. We need to resist them. Indeed I would be happy if the threshold were lower, since it would be within reach of more articles and editors. The real issue, whatever the threshold, is improving the reliability, so that listed articles meet the threshold, and articles are only failed (or delisted) if they don't. Subpages have helped a lot in this respect. I think improving reviewer and nominator guidelines (and providing model examples) may also help.

At the same time, we have to resist any changes that hold back GA growth (a lot of my wiki-time is devoted to this, these days). Ultimately, the process must be as simple as this: if an article meets the criteria, list it; if it doesn't, don't. Different reviewers interpret the criteria differently, so there is a grey area, but Wikipedia's consensus model is how we resolve it. Some reviewers may be too exacting, but they often compensate by providing much assistance. Some reviews are sloppy, so we have to be vigilant and spot them. There are many in between, but renomination and individual and community GAR provide ways to find consensus. And on the way, the article invariably improves. Geometry guy 23:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

WikiThanks

Geometry, thanks for taking the time to comment on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. I am glad you see how important this guideline will be, since it will determine the inclusion or exclusion of television character and television episodes. I was impressed with how much time and effort you put into explaining your position. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Reading the discussion was the most time consuming part, but I believe it is essential to read what other editors have to say before forming ones own opinion. Geometry guy 13:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Main space for your template

I am going to make your deletion template a main space template. With over 2,800 edits of mine deleted too, I like the template. Ikip (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

{{User 1000}} + three more linked there. great idea. Ikip (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It may be borderline for template space, but it would be ironic if it got deleted. Geometry guy 13:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ill-informed

I think you need to do some reading! [1]. Giano (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to relax a bit. Geometry guy 17:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have never "relaxed" in my life, I have no intention of starting now. Giano (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA business

Several people have indicated they're interested in either participating in my February RFA project or looking over our shoulders; here's the game plan. Anyone who hasn't seen Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies at Meta before, take a quick look. It's now standard stuff, although it was controversial in its day; it outlines various wiki-philosophies such as Eventualism vs. Immediatism and Sysopism vs. Rehabilism vs. Politicism. I think you can see the same conflicts showing up at RFA; in fact, people don't generally argue "philosophies" much these days ... except during RFAs and at WT:RFA, so RFA seems to be the new forum for some old fights and also a few new ones. The lead section to that page says: "People with different views on these spectra may be stuck in a conflict which is actually a meta-conflict." Bingo. For the solution to that problem, I suggest the same old solution: invite people who share similar philosophies to talk with each other and build their case. If you're interested in seeing how this project plays out, watchlist WP:RFACOM. (Not watchlisting userpages in February, sorry, too much work to do; feel free to drop a note on my userpage or participate at RFACOM.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The facts

Since we're so concerned about facts, rather than speculation, all of the sudden. Here are the facts. I was stuck with a lame review. I ask you guys for help. I woke up the next morning and the article I wanted help on was at AfD. How would you feel? Sleep on that. Wrad (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd probably laugh out loud. Seriously. Wikipedia throws a curveball sometimes. There were 16 hours between your request and the start of the AfD. You were unlucky that the action happened in the latter half, where your timezone had you sleeping. Possible reactions: outrage ("there's a vendetta against the article") or "that's the way the cookie crumbles". Geometry guy 09:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm done with GA

Apology sincerely accepted, Geo, but I'm about done with GA. The reviews I've been getting out of it are getting worse and worse. It seems like nothing but a rubber stamp anymore. The frustration I feel at the process has gradually increased with time, and finally broken into this. I was holding onto my faith in GA most recently because it was one place where writers of smaller articles could get some respect, but this event has convinced me that GA has joined the march against such articles. It is no longer what it used to be. I'll have to find some respect in another way. People may say what they say about WP:OWN (often misinterpreted) and taking things personally, but people need to find some respect and reward for what they do, and it feels like my niche is disappearing. As Raul would say, short article writers are suffering from "resource starvation". They are continually being forbidden access to a vital resource, and are thus dying out. Wrad (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I can probably find this out by searching, but can you list the reviews of articles you submitted that got worse and worse? I'd like to know, because I sincerely believe GAN has been getting better, especially since the introduction of review subpages, and many editors share that view. I believe GAN used to be too often a rubber stamp, but that the accountability of subpages has made that problem more rare. However, if there is evidence to the contrary, then such beliefs need to be questioned. Many thanks, Geometry guy 23:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's one for instance. 1346. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, now you're just attacking me out of spite. Immediately after you wrote that someone challenged your review, did you know that? There is no peace around here. Why don't you all just delist all of the articles I've written? I'm sure you could find at least one thing wrong with each of them. Would that give you all some peace? It might give me some. It's all just a digital world somebody's going to eventually delete as junk anyway. Wrad (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I do hope the two of you will be able to work together again in the future as productively as you did on that article. It is fine if it takes time to rebuild trust and/or respect. Wikipedia is like that and there is no rush. Please, no negative comments in this thread. I don't like them on my talk page in general. I generally don't delete them, but I try not to encourage them. Positive comments are always welcome here, as is information. I'm particularly interested in the latter, hence my reply to you Wrad. Geometry guy 00:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

To Malleus: I just can't. I can see what I'm doing, I've just bottled it all up too long. I can't do it. I'm sorry. I don't think I will be able to work with anybody for awhile. Nothing personal. Wrad (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can understand that. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your understanding. I still (and always) welcome objective information about the GA process. Geometry guy 00:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

GA/A etc

Just wondering if you'd seen this? EyeSerene^talk 09:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Septimus Heap

Hey Geo, thanks for your wonderful input in the Septimus Heap page. It looks rally good now!! - "Legolas" (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for dropping by. With such friendly encouragement, I'll continue helping out as much as I can. Can you clarify for me the contradiction about "Syren"? On the one hand the author has confirmed it in an interview. Yet also, she hasn't. Geometry guy 12:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we can change the prose now to say that Syren is the upcoming book. The coverart has been released and it says Syren also. But it is also true that the author never confirmed the title in any interview, she only confirmed the release date. "Legolas" (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I've tried to clarify that. Geometry guy 15:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Alan Kotok

Hi. You sure cheered me up. Whenever you have time I think you can do your stuff on Alan Kotok. I doubt I can improve it any more but will help if anything comes up. There is one question about a source on the article's talk page. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I made a first (not very good) pass. Further discussion is best concentrated on the talk page, but a warm welcome to my talk page and thank you for your kind words. Geometry guy 23:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Manchester Mark 1

I'm concerned that this will languish at GAR because it's an article on a subject that many reviewers may not feel confident to pass a second opinion on.

Do you think there's any point in keeping the review open? Not sure I do. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been closing the majority of GARs these days, largely because they would languish otherwise, so I would prefer not to have to reply directly on an individual case. It would be very easy to close this one anytime as "no action" if you were happy (as GAR nominator) for it to be closed with a view to renomination at GAN. However, there may be grounds for listing the article as GA now, but even if not the GAR may help to place the article in context and establish some consensus. Philcha has made a much valued new contribution to GAN, and I've been impressed by the acknowledgments on both sides of helpful remarks and fair points, which have improved the article, even in the context of disagreement. Geometry guy 23:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If no second opinions are offered over the next four or five days then I'll close the review myself, and renominate at GAN. No reason to clog up GAR unnecessarily. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

PS. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'd be "happy" with that outcome. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to get upset whichever way the GAR goes, just do whatever you think is right. Also there's no personal problem between Malleus and me, we've been having the occasional joke about other things while this has been going on. --Philcha (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that there is great mutual respect between you both. The GAR is heading for list now, and without further comments, that would be a reasonable conclusion later this week. There's a chance that Majoreditor, Yobmod, or some other frequent GAR contributors will chip in. But if you say "Yeah, I'm not happy with the emphasis, but maybe it is okay for GA anyway", then it could be closed tomorrow. That was my implicit question. I will, of course, always do what I think is right :-) Geometry guy 22:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the emphasis, but maybe it is okay for GA anyway - that's a fair summary. When are you going to bring peace to the Middle East? --Philcha (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Regarding the Middle East, Barack is on the line right now. I'll see what I can do :-) Geometry guy 00:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Your efforts have led to several improvements to the article Philcha! Geometry guy 01:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

They have, and I'm happy to admit that. In the end I think it was just a disagreement about the emphasis of the article. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

← Thanks for putting me out of my misery.[2] Two Manchester computers down now, only four more to go before I have to decide whether I'm brave enough to take any of them to FAC. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Osteochondritis dissecans ready for FA?

I am at a loss for how to improve the article as it stands. Recently my edits have mainly been focusing on minor copyediting, and at this point I feel as though it's time to jump the cliff and hope for the best. I was advised by my teacher (JimmyButler to wait until my diagram images have passed OTRS verification. At that point, would you support a move for FA? Kind regards, Food_Puma 00:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks good. When you go for FAC you will discover lots of things to improve! I'm watchlisting, and will help if I can. Geometry guy 20:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in. If this was my article I'd go for FAC now, on the basis that the OTRS thing is in hand and FAC isn't a quick process anyway. If the only objection raised is that a couple of your images are waiting for OTRS approval, then it won't be failed just for that. Added to which you'd be very lucky if that is the only objection raised. Whatever the outcome though, the process will undoubtedly improve the article, so I say again go for it, and let the Devil take the hindmost! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuorum (talk • contribs) 18:59, 15 February 2009

Too Technical? Food_Puma 18:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a matter of opinion, not fact, which is why you now need those extra eyes at FAC. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am nervous! Haha. I am scared of getting shut down, but I suppose its time. Gah! Food_Puma 19:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll comment on the talk page and the now-imminent FAC :-) Geometry guy 19:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

How to handle article reversion?

I had begun reviewing Scientology in Germany when a single purpose account showed up with a long post on Talk:Scientology in Germany/GA1 and then made several fundamental changes to the article. I undid his changes, asking for talk page discussion first, but he immediately reverted to his version. How do I handle this? (It apparently has to do with a POV controversy over Scientology.) —Mattisse (Talk) 16:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Voxpopulis (talk · contribs) has been warned on its talk page about the reversion and the uncivil edit summary. Since all Scientology articles are on Probation, you were right to enlist someone else's assistance on reversions. It's often a 1RR instead of 3RR. I'm watching the article, and Geometry Guy's assistance would also be helpful. --Moni3 (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The post on the GA review page appears to have been an accident which the editor has undone. There are now comments on the talk page. If he/she hadn't done that, then you (Mattisse) could have moved the comments from the review page to article talk.

I think your revert to the article may have been a bit hasty: first, in article space, you should judge the edit not the editor (don't say "single purpose account" in an edit summary); second, it is usually best when reviewing GAs to let the content experts handle changes to the article (the new material appears to be sourced and not manifestly disruptive). In this case Jayen may agree, partially agree, largely disagree or revert the changes, followed by talk page discussion.

Thanks, however, to Moni for stepping in and pointing out that the article is on probation. The editor clearly has prior WP editing experience, so should understand the necessity to be ultra-civil henceforth. It may be necessary to investigate e.g. if there is a breach of WP:SOCK here. However, assuming good faith is the best starting point. In particular, I didn't find the edit summary particularly incivil.

I'll keep an eye on the article and the review as well. Geometry guy 17:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the advice. I realized afterward that I was overly hasty and had become involved in a way that I should not have. I will do as you suggest and let it be for the time being. I was just quite taken by surprise, as the long interview about Hollywood celebrities had nothing to do with the article and the link given was not to a reliable source. Thanks! I have cooled down. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Article editor Jayen does not agree with the changes he has found and is wondering what to do. He feels that the new user's edit " seems less like a content dispute and more like disruptive editing by a sock". He is listing his disagreements on the article talk page. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Your reply there was spot on. Just keep editing to improve the article. Note that there is currently a fresh Scientology RfArb going on. Geometry guy 20:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(←) I've now read the article, some source material, and some of the RfArb and other onwiki background.

Voxpopulis has a point. One of my NPOV tests for articles on controversial topics is to see how easy it is to guess on which side of the controversy the sympathies of the main editors lie. In this case, it was very easy! Ironically, one of the main sources (Schoen) is about how framing the facts can influence their interpretation. This article does that extensively, for instance in its approach to court rulings according to their outcome. Cherry picking from sources, omitting relevant information and sentence structure (including misuse of words to avoid) add to the bias. The lead is even more selective and does not summarize the article. I may comment further on the review or talk page, particularly if you would find that helpful.

You've picked a tough one to review here! This is a case where it is probably necessary to read as much of the source material as you can before coming to a conclusion. Geometry guy 18:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

My view is that the article can either be about "framing" and how Hollywood celebrities influence the American political process in general, a la the Stephen Kent article, or it can attempt to describe whatever the legal situation in Germany is regarding the Scientologists. If it is about the former, then it should place the Scientologists and Germany issue in context of a much wider problem of celebrities influencing a variety of things, like views on global warming, voting for Obama, body image, you name it. To Americans, who are the group most affect by undue influence of celebrities on the American political process, their influence on the American government regarding Scientology and Germany is among the least important. As Kent says, "As is common in other instances of celebrities' political involvement, Scientology's celebrities have contributed to the trivialization of serious issues that confront the international community." —Mattisse (Talk) 21:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh? I didn't refer to Hollywood celebrities or Kent anywhere in my comment.

The article is about Scientology in Germany, so it needs to illuminate readers about the nature of Scientology as it is practised in Germany and the response of the German government. Why is Scientology so keen to be recognised as a religion? Why is Germany instinctively hostile to it? There are plenty of secondary sources with analysis of these and other questions from different viewpoints. Geometry guy 21:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I was reflecting the discussion on the talk page. Sorry, I thought you had read it. I am hoping they will get away from navel gazing over the "American" view, framing, whatever. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course I have read the talk page. That is of minor importance to a GA review. It is the quality of the article that matters, and that is what I was addressing in my comment. Geometry guy 23:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you would rather take over the review? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't. That wouldn't be good practice, unless you feel unable to complete your review for some reason. You asked for my advice and I have been giving the best advice I can. I haven't even commented on the article talk page. I have offered to add my assessment of the NPOV of the article, but have not yet done so. This is a difficult article, and the pass/fail decision is yours alone. I'm offering support if you want it, but can withdraw if you don't. Geometry guy 23:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked for advice on the article reversion by a single purpose account, and I truly appreciate the advice you gave on that issue. Thanks to you and Moni3, it is not a problem at the moment and article editors are working out their issues. I did not ask for your NPOV assessment of the article. You gave your opinion unsolicited. I gave a response which you criticized. So, are you insisting? This is extremely unpleasant for me. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You have asked for my advice on many things recently, Mattisse, so I have assumed that you valued my opinion. I am insisting on nothing and am surprised you find anything unpleasant about anything I have said, because my every comment has been made with the best interests of Wikipedia and your contributions to it in mind. I have not criticized any response by you. I simply asked questions that I believe the article needs to address. This was not in disagreement with anything you have said, only my view on how to improve the article. However, if you wish to disagree with me, I am fine with that. I do not consider and have never considered disagreement to be any form of personal criticism. Geometry guy 00:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, am I free to have my own views or do I have to follow your POV as expressed above? I did not ask for you to give it. I disagree with your version of what is in "the best interests of Wikipedia". Do that rule me out? Does that mean I should not continue reviewing GAs? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep doing this Mattisse? Does it make you feel better in some way to fall out with anyone who makes an effort to help you? Disagreement is healthy. Petulance is not. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Your intrusions on to everywhere I post are always dispiriting and a definite minus to being on Wikipedia, Malleus. I will dewatch this page. I don't need anymore discouraging comments from you. I do not seek ugliness. I will not review GAs anymore. You may review any GAs I have done, or the few I have left to do and delist as you please. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have far better things to do with my time than to review your GAs, as I have never made any secret of the fact that I believe you to be amongst the best of GA reviewers. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Atiyah: Please take a look

at: Talk:Michael_Atiyah#Working_on_the_article_again. Your feedback will be great. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I am very sorry that I cannot stick it out at GA and work with you. I think we could work it out. I was just shocked at your POV and could not adjust quickly. If I could post on your page, and you and I could converse, it would be good. But unfortunately, I am tired of the editors that feel they can intrude on my postings with their own negativity. You may feel that I am over sensitive, but I am so sick of the ugliness. It is not worth it to me right now to continue with GA. I am very sorry and it is not your fault. I am not going to watch you page as I just don't want to know what others are saying. Again, I am sorry. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to apologize Mattisse. You are the one that is suffering from your reactions, not me. I have not expressed a point of view (in the Wikipedia sense - I have no opinion on Scientology), only observed a bias in an article. WP:NPOV is one of Wikipedia's most important and beautiful policies. It is one of the main reasons for Wikipedia's success and one of the main reasons there isn't even more ugliness than what you see. Everyone gets a say. Every significant point of view gets represented fairly and without bias. And then we let each reader decide their own point of view.

I hope I can still be of some help to you, but I cannot control what happens on my talk page while I am offline. If you prefer, you can use talkback to ask for my input and keep the thread on your talk page. Alternatively you can seek advice elsewhere. Working with me (by asking my advice) and contributing to GA (by reviewing articles) are entirely separate matters. There's no reason to stop the latter when you no longer find the former helpful. I wish you the best of luck with your contributions. Geometry guy 10:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have replied to your comment on my talk page. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have withdrawn from the GAN. You have effectively taken over. It is all yours. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to slow down a bit, Mattisse, for your own good. Geometry guy 23:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I just want to be free of this. This is why I was upset before. I could see this coming as you clearly have an investment in this article. I will not operate under these conditions I will not review any more GANs. You have the Scientology article. I have withdrawn. It is yours to do with what you want. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You clearly have a point of view. You expressed it above. It is not neutral, although you seem to think it is, and therefore you have carte blanche to interfere. Since you have greater power, and you wish to conduct the GAN in a way that I do not like, that is antithetical to my way of doing things, then I have no choice. I resent it but there is nothing I can do except refuse to associate myself with it. It is very unfortunate but then, GAN has become an unpleasant experience between you and Malleus, so it belongs to you guys. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no investment in the article at all. I investigated these issues to establish whether the alternative account concerned was acting disruptively or not. On reading the article, I saw words to avoid, leading sentence structure, a failure to mention tax issues, and numerous other problems. Such issues are worthy of comment. I can't do anything with the article: only consensus can decide, and by withdrawing, you are making it more difficult to establish consensus. Again "interfere" - what does that mean?

Meanwhile your perception of a GAN conspiracy bears no resemblence to reality. Malleus and I have at times been at loggerheads. But you must do as you think best. Geometry guy 00:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not see you and Malleus as a conspiracy, only in that you are both good at playing the game, and with each other. I don't think you have to portray me as stupid just because I was hurt. I trusted you more. Because I had a high opinion of you, I am disillusioned. I realize there is no place for me here at Wikipedia. The conspiracy, such that exists, is that contributors like me are not valued. That is all. I know you do not care that I will no longer contribute to GAN. I do think that Wikipedia as a whole looses, not because I will not contribute, but because thousands like me are drive away from Wikipedia, while the controlling group grows stronger and more entrenched. I think that you have an investment because I believe that you value my contributions enough that you would not interfere with the GAN process for no reason. I thought you valued me to that degree. I believe that you would have trusted me to do my job if you were disinterested. But because you had a strong point of view, you could not leave it to me and my way of working with editors. My way of working with editors was not good enough; you had to take over because you wanted to ensure your point of view dominated. That is why I am so sad. But it is reality. There is a certain meanness and a mentality that has become the normal here that I cannot handle. It was my mistake to expect anything different from you. My mistake definitely. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't even know what the game is, never mind its rules. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have had two GA reviews with you, Mattisse; the first one was one of the most inspiring experiences I've had in Wikipedia – not because the article passed eventually, but because I realised how much room for improvement I had as an editor. I am fairly certain I am not alone in having had such an experience, and there is plenty of evidence that you are valued by many people.

To make a more general comment on the situation that developed here – as the main editor of the article concerned, I obviously didn't mind Geometry guy weighing in on the talk page. Many people of all sorts of points of view are bound to pass through that talk page sooner or later. However, that is a different issue from the question of how you guys, as GA reviewers, can best cooperate, which is what most of the kB above seem to be about. I think it stands to reason that if GA reviewers approach each other for advice on a procedural matter, it will help mutual trust, morale and professionalism among GA reviewers if they leave any content or other concerns to the reviewer already in place, or express any concerns they may have in private, on a user talk page, letting the reviewer ponder them and do with them as they see fit.

There are many parallels to this in real life. Think of the difficulties involved in taking on a friend as an employee. Mixed roles, often both relationships go awry, the professional one and the personal one. Or in professional contexts, if I ask a colleague for advice about a job I have done, I will not appreciate it if he calls my client and tells them that he thinks I give them substandard service. If I discuss my concerns about being forced to sell my house with my accountant, I will not appreciate it if that accountant then approaches my estate agent to put in an offer on my house. In any relationships requiring trust, it is best to restrict the interaction to a single dimension, to make that trust grow. Many professional services have strict guidelines on such matters, and for good reasons.

I am just submitting this as food for thought, because I think we are all agreed that Mattisse has been doing a sterling job around here, and it's not good to lose such people, or cause them heartbreak.

As for the article, I have made some changes, and would be happy to receive feedback on them. GA or not, I would really like to get the article sorted (and re-submit it in due course). Cheers, Jayen466 21:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly one side of the coin. Perhaps the other side though is how many reviewers is Mattisse trying to chase off, and why? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I had hoped to draw a line under this conversation so as to avoid the risk to cause more upset to Mattisse. She is not trying to do anything to GA reviewers as far as I can tell, or at least I have the good faith to suppose that. My impression is that she sometimes simply develops a conviction about others intentions, which are contrary to what those intentions actually are. Her view that Malleus and I are "playing a game" is such an example. In my impression Malleus is one of the most vehement critics of those whom he sees treating Wikipedia as a game, and is instead rather dedicated to content. Mattisse's view of my intentions regarding this article are just as far from reality. "Geometry guy feels he knows best." How can anyone know what I feel based on the few bytes I contribute to this Wiki? I don't have the wiki-time to play games. Incidentally, I am not offended or upset by anything said about me in this story and I am always ready to apologize if I have erred or (inadvertently) caused offense.

Concerning the thoughtful issues of substance raised by Jayen, I would stress that GA is a collaborative process. The idea "whether an article is GA or not depends on just one reviewer" is a myth. Articles receive reviews, re-reviews, reassessments, new reviews etc., and at each step, anyone can comment on a review, and anyone can contribute to improving the article while it is under review. Any other state of affairs would be contrary to Pillar Three and WP:OWN.

The special feature of GA is that in each review or individual reassessment, one editor (the initial reviewer) takes full responsibility for the outcome. Mattisse has done so in this case and I respect her decision. This special feature is a matter of efficiency and is a key reason for the success of GA: in many cases, one (or maybe two) reviewers is enough; the process saves the tribunals and long discussions for those few cases where they are really needed.

Regarding the article, so far I have only commented on the less contentious part, and this has already led to significant improvements in neutral prose structure. I hope the article will continue to improve. Improvement most definitely does not mean "do as I say". When I contribute to article talk, I hope other editors will at least read what I say, but since I can go on somewhat sometimes... hmmm, like now... Geometry guy 22:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Can you please comment on this response to these edits and offer an opinion if you feel inclined. Thanks Voxpopulis (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I will continue to contribute towards improving the article on the article talk page. Geometry guy 09:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you please offer an opinion regarding the following comments by Matisse regarding my edits, none of which have been shown to be disruptive.

• "Then I could use a few edits to remove his material, and if he reverts, document his editing as disruptive on the talk page"
• "Otherwise, lets just keep a watch on what he puts in. He must justify everything. (He has at least become more careful."
• "If I were you, I would save a copy, in case the article temporarily goes to hell."
• "so far the article seems ok and his additions are not fatal"
• "I have out waited editors and restored an article at a later date"

None of this is in good faith and it evidences discrimination. Voxpopulis (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed on user talk elsewhere. I have nothing to add. Geometry guy 09:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

OK dude, you do it, go!!! Voxpopulis (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Scientology in Germany

Regarding your allegations that I was not assuming good faith toward you:

Please assume good faith toward me, Geometry guy. Please understand the confusion and blurred boundaries I experienced by your jumping into a GA review unexpectedly threw me off base and made my usual method of performing a review impossible. I am not sophisticated and have happily doing GA reviews without knowing your specific role. Surely, you must see that to someone like me, you seem to have more influence over the GA process than just any other editor, so perhaps you can try to understand that it did not seem so to me that you were just another editor when you entered into the article review after I consulted you regarding a possible vandal. I am sure you have the good faith to accept that I did not desire to be confused nor did I desire the resulting disorientation stemming from your substantial intrusion into the article that prevented me from working with editors in my normal way. Any of my behavior that resulted from the confusion and disruption was not deliberate on my part but only reflective of my inability to cope in such a situation. Please do not believe that I was not assuming good faith toward you. I was just struggling to do my best to handle a situation where my usual tools had been removed.

I have now withdrawn from reviewing GA articles just so I can avoid this sort of uncomfortable and unpleasant situation in the future. Any mistakes I made were made unintentionally. This is the first time I have had this problem in 150 GA reviews, so I was not prepared and was not skilled enough to act as you wanted me to, and I therefore displeased you. I am very sorry I could not perform as you desired. In retrospect, I believe you should have just taken over the review, as without being able to use the skills I have developed for reviewing GAs, I was helpless. But, as I said, since I will not be reviewing GAs in the future, so this situation will not reoccur. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mattisse. I understand that your confusion was not deliberate, and apologize for implying a lack of care on your part. I have no doubt in your good faith. My comment was not intended as an "allegation" but as a reminder. When something seems amiss, it can be worth taking the time to check it. If you cannot cope, slow down a bit; take a break. My own response was rushed, and consequently not well written, and open to misinterpretation. I noticed and appreciated (in a positive way) that you corrected a couple of your own (perhaps hasty) replies to my comments.

I would like to emphasise that I did not contribute to the GA review. I am sympathetic about how you felt over me contributing to the ongoing NPOV discussions on the talk page, but I cannot be held responsible for the reactions of every other editor to my good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Again though, thanks for commenting here and for all your good work. Geometry guy 19:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

FAC symposium

• From suggestion to concrete plan: what are the "how to do it" details? I'm all out of "how to" after proposing 1 (f), but I suppose I could try to reactivate my braincells. Mike Christie is always keen on details of implementation... And your thoughts? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Mill $ Homepage

Tony1, Mattisse and I have all gone over the prose, and I have responded to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Million Dollar Homepage. Could you please revisit to see if your concerns have now been addressed. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

GAN for Keith Bostic (American football)

I have a quandry on this GAN. At the end, there is a section on his nephew's football career. I'd asked that the information be cut, instead it got expanded. I get a feel that it's very WP:COATRACKy, but would appreciate a second opinion. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd heard of WP:COATRACK, but didn't read it until now: what a poorly written essay it is! I won't be quoting it anytime soon. This article clearly isn't an empty coatrack for alternative agendas, but that isn't the point. WP:COATTAILS would be more appropriate for the nephew's career, which fails completely to be notable. The personal life section has nothing to say which illuminates the subject of the article apart from the fact that he is also one of the better basketball players for the Oilers' summer activity. I suggest working that into the article in some other way, and binning the rest as trivia.

GA reviewers may have dug a hole for themselves by asking for more personal information. If there is none, so be it. If he has a spouse, and a son who has football ambitions, it may be worth a sentence or two. However, at the moment the article fails WP:LEAD, because the lead does not summarize the "Personal" section and cannot do so while remaining a concise introduction to the subject. That is the magic of WP:LEAD :) Geometry guy 20:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with your "coattails" analogy, and have said as much elsewhere, I remain firmly of the view that a biography aticle containing no biographical detail clearly fails the GA criteria; there is no "hole". Editors who want their articles assessed against the GA criteria have to meet the requirements of those criteria. If that means articles about secretive sports stars can't become GAs, so be it; perhaps they'll have better luck at FA. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your general pontifications. I don't know if you have investigated the details in this case, but I thank you for the information this interjection on user talk adds to a discussion between individual editors about a specific article. Geometry guy 23:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you calm down and untwist your knickers Geometry guy. Ealdgyth asked me the same question that she asked you. If you would prefer me not to post on your talk page again, that's just fine and dandy with me. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I am completely calm. If you and Ealdgyth want to thrash it out on my talk page, rather than your own, then I am flattered. I wasn't watchlisting your talk page and bear no ill will. I'd be grateful for more information in the future; then I wouldn't need to comment. Now, I leave you to it. Geometry guy 23:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I'm no longer watching your talk page either. Rant away to your heart's content without any fear of further interruption from me. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry G'Guy, I think we're done. I've asked Tony to excise the nephew information completely, we'll see what happens. I agree the son information should stay. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No apologies necessary. I hope my input has been helpful, but, more importantly, I hope that the review works out well and the result is a deservedly good article. Geometry guy 23:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(Puts on her devil's advocate hat) So why'd you pass Justus then? We don't know information about him... don't know a birth date, only a guess on where he was born, no clue where he died... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I think on reflection that I may have made a mistake, and that I ought to open a community reassessment of poor old Justus. ;-)

The serious answer though is that ... well, you know the serious answer, no need to labour it. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A favor to ask

Hi, you almost certainly don't know me, but I'm Tezkag72. I have a small favor to ask; since you're an administrator and have the ability to do this, can you delete all the redirects to my userpage (and if possible, user subpages)? Thanks. Tezkag72^{私にどなる}_{私のはかい} 14:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Your parenthetic request was slightly ambiguous. However, all redirects to your user page were user subpages, and all redirects in your userspace were redirects to pages in your userspace, so I have deleted all redirects in your userspace per CSD U1, G7. None had any backlinks.

I did not look for redirects to your user subpages from outside your userspace, nor did I delete any other user subpages. If I made any mistakes, please let me know and I will fix them. Geometry guy 20:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you did exactly what I wanted. Thanks. Tezkag72^{私にどなる}_{私のはかい} 22:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Vector spaces

Bonjour,

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

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

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

Thanks and a request

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

Obesity GAN review

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

I have added the lines "

Main article: Exercise trends

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

Dispatch help

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review of GA status

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

Still keeping an eye on WT:AWG

hi,

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

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