User talk:Geometry guy/Archive 21

WP:FACL

Hey Geometry guy. I was wondering if you would be able to edit Wikipedia:Featured article tools so that it will automatically add new featured article nominations to [[Category:Current feature article candidates]]? My favorite tool, WP:FACL, has been broken by the changes in FAC subpage locations (archiveX), but CBM informed me a while back that VeblenBot would be able to easily pick up the subpages in a category to properly populate User:VeblenBot/C/Wikipedia_featured_article_candidates. Thanks! TwilligToves (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed WP:FACL. It will now only break on candidates with more than 4 previous FACs. Geometry guy 12:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Very cool! Thanks so much! TwilligToves (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could you fix this on Template:CF/Wikipedia featured list candidates? Thanks! Dabomb87 (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Same disclaimer applies, although the number "4" can be increased a little in either case if it proves necessary. Geometry guy 17:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we increase the number to 10? We have Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ralph Bakshi/archive8 at the moment, which WP:FACL doesn't like. TwilligToves (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Done (it now breaks on 12 or more). Featured lists still break on 5 or more. Geometry guy 17:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

New GA reassessment system

Probably just me being dense, but I've just created the individual GA reassessment page on Kevin Youkilis. When I tried to remove the Good article reassessment nominees category from the article's talk page an error box popped up saying "Category 'Good article reassessment nominees' not found; maybe it is in a template?" What am I doing wrong? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This addition is not a mechanism for stating new GARs, but a system for requesting attention as to whether such GARs are necessary. I'm not sure what difficulty you encountered, but in this case you removed the template and removed the article from the category. There may be a bug with VeblenBot, in that it does not like to have an empty listing. I will raise this issue with CBM. Geometry guy 21:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I probably didn't express myself clearly. My problem is that I can't remove the category, because when I try I get that popup box. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

On my browser the article is not in the category. Geometry guy 21:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on then, because I've purged and it's still in that category when I look at it. Anyway, if it looks OK to you then it must be a caching problem on my side. Sorry to have bothered you about nothing. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this may have been a misunderstanding: the article is listed at Category:Good article reassessment nominees, but reassessments (community and individual) have been listed there for some time, and have nothing to do with recent changes. Geometry guy 22:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel quite stupid now. From earlier discussions I had the idea that I had to remove the category from the talk page. Doh! --Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That slapping of the head experience is one I know only too well! Geometry guy 22:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps June update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 396 articles were swept in May! That more than doubles our most successful month of 163 swept articles in September 2007 (and the 2 articles swept in April)! I plan to be sending out updates at the beginning of each month detailing any changes, updates, or other news until Sweeps are completed. So if you get sick of me, keep reviewing articles so we can be done (and then maybe you'll just occasionally bump into me). We are currently over 60% done with Sweeps, with just over a 1,000 articles left to review. With over 40 members, that averages out to about 24 articles per person. If each member reviews an article a day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. I know that may be asking for a lot, but it would allow us to complete Sweeps and allow you to spend more time writing GAs, reviewing GANs, or focusing on other GARs (or whatever else it is you do to improve Wikipedia) as well as finish ahead of the two-year mark coming up in August. I recognize that this can be a difficult process at times and appreciate your tenacity in spending time in ensuring the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Need an opinion

I'd like to have your opinion on something that's been bothering me for a while, the condition of the articles selected for DYK. I won't bore you with the details, but you can see some of my concerns on the DYK talk page.

I feel quite strongly about this, and have considered initiating an RfC to see whether others share my concerns. Am I way off base with this? Should I just drop it? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the right person to ask on this one, because I have a different view of the main page. In addition to its obvious aim to showcase the virtues of Wikipedia and its best work, it has an equally important aim to attract new editors. DYK is one of the few parts of the main page that shows readers that Wikipedia is work in progress, and needs help. It is embarrassing that among our articles there is a largely unsourced and unencyclopedic advertisement, but this more honestly reflects the true state of Wikipedia than TFA does: probably 90% of articles are this poor or worse - most don't even comply with WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, despite these being core policies.

When readers come from the main page to article talk to say things like "Does Wikipedia allow commercial plugs like this?", I would reply, "Yes it does, even though its guidelines say it doesn't. The reason is that there are about 2 million articles that don't comply with guidelines and only a few thousand editors. Wikipedia needs your help!" Geometry guy 19:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I suppose that's a reasonable and pragmatic view. I'll drop the issue then; thanks for the alternative viewpoint. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse forums

...too many forums! Everything is spread all over Wikipedia. Can we all agree to talk in one and only one place? Ling.Nut (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

For encouragement, advice and help in developing the plan, the obvious place would be User talk:Mattisse/Plan. For outside views from the community, WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse is one option. The workshop talk page is another. A single thread in one of these places would be best. Geometry guy 22:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

GAR

Sorry was under the impression that I was to close it.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Geometry guy 19:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of other medical GA that are not up to GA. Have added comments to the talk pages. Not sure the difference between an individual vs a community assessment.

• Schatzki ring
• Osteonecrosis of the jaw
• Yellow fever
• Endoscopic foreign body retrieval
• Hepatorenal syndrome
• Pyromania
• Robinow syndrome
• Measles
• Chronic granulomatous disease

Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

An individual reassessment is a bit like a GAN review:

• In a GAN review, the reviewer assesses a nomination against the criteria, leaves a review, allows time for improvements if appropriate, and lists the article as GA if it meets the criteria;
• In an individual reassessment, the reviewer reassesses a current GA against the criteria , leaves a review, allows time for fixes if appropriate, and delists the article from WP:GA if it does not meet the criteria.

So in an individual reassessment, the nominating reviewer does decide the outcome. By contrast a community reassessment is a request by the nominator for multiple reviewers (perhaps including the nominator) to reassess an article against the criteria and the outcome is determined by consensus; hence it is preferable for the closing editor to have an a priori disinterested view of the article.

I suggest you use individual reassessments in all cases where you are confident that the article does not meet the criteria and you have not contributed significantly to the article yourself. Please do allow time for other editors to respond before delisting. Geometry guy 19:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

First trial GAR

G guy, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Starvin' Marvin (South Park)/archive1 indicates it shouldn't be GA; this is the first I've encountered since you instituted the new process. What am I supposed to do with it after I close it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Place {{GA request}} on the article talk page (either at the top or in a new section, as you prefer). Geometry guy 18:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! (Can I just do it now, since I'm a few hours from archivng, and I don't want to forget, or should I wait until I'm finished archiving?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. In principle anyone can use the system at any time, although I hope it will be used sparingly. Geometry guy 18:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree: I just encountered another that was passed GA long ago, and really only has prose issues, so I don't think I would use that template. What do you think about Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No Jacket Required/archive1, just to see if we're using the same threshold? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about getting the threshold exactly right: the template is just a request to consider whether reassessment is needed. Someone (e.g. me :) will simply remove it if they do not consider such a reassessment to be the best use of limited GA resources. Concerning this article, uncited quotations and unreliable sources are both GA issues, so it would be entirely reasonable for you (or someone else) to alert the GA community. As an aside, I would note that although some GA intricacies may seem unfathomable from an outside perspective, the good article criteria have been essentially stable since about October 2007. I consider such stability to be a good thing, and contribute towards its maintenance. I hope they give a clear enough idea when a weak FAC needs GA reevaluation. Geometry guy 19:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Eeek, so maybe I should add Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gulfton, Houston/archive2 as well? Don't want to become public enemy number one over there ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me be frank: many GAs do not meet the criteria, either because they were listed a long time ago, or because they received a poor review. GA attempts to achieve a standard through multiple reviews and reassessment. However, GA reassessment resources are best targeted at articles that fall significantly short of the standard. I haven't studied either of these articles closely. Uncited quotations are easy to fix, and it is possible that the unreliable sources are not needed to support significant material. If they are, however, then I believe the GA community would consider it a courtesy to be notified (I certainly would). You would only become public enemy number one if such notification contained a suggestion that GA had screwed up, rather than it being a work in progress. The current wording of {{GA request}} aims to avoid such implicit criticism. Geometry guy 19:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I'll go ahead and add all of those when I'm done, but I'm sure (in the future) inconsistency in what I add vs. what I don't add may be noted, since I can't do a careful review of each one. We'll just see how it goes ... please let me know if I add one that didn't warrant! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just looked at Talk:Starvin' Marvin (South Park)/GA1 (May 2009!) and it looks ... superficial. Should we maintain a log of inadequate recent reviews, e.g. since start of 2009, in case we find persistently superficial reviewers, so we can give them some guidance? --Philcha (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That could be helpful. There has been discussion of mentoring reviewers, but it needs to be targeted. If you can come up with a good mechanism to identify inadequate reviews, without alienating the reviewers concerned, please propose it at WT:GAN. Geometry guy 20:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather collect data first, to see whether there's a problem. Maybe a sub-page of WP:GAN with a sortable table containing date passed (in yyyy-mm-dd format for sorting), username of reviewer, sub-topic (in case we have a problem wih certain areas, e.g. the sciences) and (not sortable) w-link to review (not article, in case same article suffers more than once). Inputs would be from GARs, WT:GAN, WT:GA and WT:GAR. When we have some data then we can decide what to do. --Philcha (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A good place for meta-stuff about the GA process is WikiProject Good articles and its subpages. For instance, WP:GAPQ although itself rather dormant, is an umbrella for GA sweeps. Geometry guy 19:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Good article Review of Ohlone

I've handled the citation issues you brought up in your Good Article reassessment. I wondered if you might award it the Good Article standing now that these issues are taken care of? Many thanks Goldenrowley (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Odd PR question

Hi Geometry guy, I have an odd problem at peer review. User:BOZ listed four peer reviews in one day, for Fantastic Four, Peanuts, Jack Kirby and Alan Moore. I left FF alone, and archived the others. I then deleted the PR and recreated it (with the same number) and pasted in the relevant content to "restart it" trying to spread the four PRs out over four days. I was going to do this for Alan Moore when I noticed the other three are all listed on June 6th (original start date). See for example Wikipedia:Peer review/Jack Kirby/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Peanuts/archive2. Any dieas where I messed it up? Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this effect is a consequence of VeblenBot having a memory. In case an article is taken out of a category accidentally, VeblenBot keeps track of articles it has seen recently in the category: if a new article is added that VeblenBot has seen recently, it keeps the old timestamp. I don't quite remember how recently "recently" is: maybe two days? So the bottom line is that you probably didn't mess up, but you can avoid this happening in the future by waiting long enough before recreating the PR page. Geometry guy 19:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation which makes perfect sense. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Shear mapping

Dear G-guy, I wonder if you could spare a couple of minutes to gave your 2c at Talk:Shear mapping

The question is whether to present the article using row vectors or column vectors. Rgdboer (talk · contribs), who substantially created the article, is very keen for row vectors. But my feeling is that column vectors tend to be more usual for introductions and more accessible, particularly for beginners.

Rgdboer (talk · contribs) has now asked for third opinions at WP:3O, but I'd very much appreciate it if you could give a view (and Silly rabbit (talk · contribs) who I have also asked), as you have made such contributions to WP's articles on algebra and geometry, at all levels; so any words of wisdom you could spare would I think be quite helpful. Jheald (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If it isn't resolved by Sunday, please let me know, and I will look into it. Geometry guy 23:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

PR request

Hi Geometry guy, would you be able to comment on the peer review here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Matrix (mathematics)/archive1? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

they are broken

Atop the asteroid page there's a spurious link to a GAR:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AGood_article_reassessment/Asteroid/1

The real link is here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asteroid/GA1
• Ling.Nut (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to yet another reason for scrapping those awful and unreliable editorial hatnotes. Thankfully they are invisible to readers who are not logged in, and can be switched off in your preferences. I don't know who set up the system and I don't know how to fix it (or get rid of them). If anyone does, please comment here. Geometry guy 17:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

A really silly question, I know, but I have to ask

I'm in a minor disagreement with a couple of other editors (nothing serious) over what is meant by "arithmetic operation". My contention is that arithmetic operations are essentially binary. The alternate view is that a unary operation such as negation is equally an arithmetic operation. Do you have a view on which interpretation of "arithmetic operation" is closer to the mark? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response. If the question is still germaine, my answer would be that yes, my view is that arithmetic operations include unary ones: negation and reciprocation are particularly important as the inverse operations in the group of (nonzero) numbers under addition and multiplication respectively. The identity elements 0 and 1 are also important nullary operations! But one should be able to find sources that express a view, rather than rely on pronouncements from G'guy :-) If there is significant disagreement in the sources, it may be worth mentioning. Geometry guy 16:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue came up in the context of describing the features of a historic computer. I think we've now come up with a form of words that satisfies everyone. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

CIA

Thanks for the heads up. I'll get to it later today or tomorrow. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Shaken, not stirred

Yes, I will look at Talk:The Man with the Golden Gun (novel)/GA1. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Good article reassessment/Exploration of Jupiter/1

Hi, G-guy. I'm moving house on Friday 26 June, and may not be able to return to this until about 1 July. Is that a huge problem? -Philcha (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Not for me. I won't be able to close the reassessment until at least 5 July, although someone else (e.g. yourself) may be able to close it sooner. Geometry guy 07:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Still hurting...

Hey. Haven't really talked in awhile. I just wanted to say that I'm still hurting a bit from that crazy Hamnet Shakespeare GA fight. Nothing has ever affected me on Wikipedia quite so much as that. I don't edit quite as much anymore and I've lost a lot of faith in making friends on the wiki and in the project as a whole, especially the GA and FA processes. I just want you to know that User:ShaShaJackson, the person who did the GA review that got me all upset in the first place, was a sock the whole time of another user who also edits Shakespeare articles and must have been ticked at me for some reason. I've been hounded by socks before, but not until Hamnet did I have people I trusted fail to see that I was under attack. It drove me crazy and it still bothers me. I suspected it was a sock from the beginning but I couldn't say anything because I didn't think anyone would believe me. I am dead serious here. I really was and am hurt by the fact that I was under attack and all anyone cared about was some stupid petty argument about biography articles. It seemed like no matter what I did or said I was the bad guy.

I'm also troubled by this question: If GA can be infiltrated so well by a sock in this case, then does GA status really mean anything at all? The only real, honest answer my experience gives me is, no. No matter how many other editors chime in, there is no guarantee that they are not all socks. "Assume good faith" really doesn't seem to work. Assuming good faith in one person requires assuming bad faith in another. Assumption of good faith is what the bad guys rely on to get what they want. In a similar vein, if I can be under attack by a sock and be rendered so defenseless to it, even so that my friends don't see it, then what am I, really, on wikipedia? It is a dehumanizing, helpless feeling. It makes me feel like wikipedia is just another part of our sick world where people are turned into numbers and their value to society is judged by pieces of paper. Wrad (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[1] Here's a diff where you say "...I am concerned and saddened by your emotional state regarding GAN. When several editors you respect do not notice an injustice you perceive,the question is why?" The answer, in your mind, was probably, "because of your emotional state", but G'guy, I was right the whole time. There was an injustice, and the fact that editors I respected didn't see it made it no less true. I was under attack by a sock. A few days later you reviewed a GA article written by the editor behind this sock! To me, this was a revelation that wikipedia is not a noble project of collaborating humans, but a bureaucracy full of wiki-lawyers. It's true, G'guy, and it breaks my heart! Wrad (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

More often than not, Wikipedia sucks. Loudly and vigorously. If you wanna make it suck less, then go ahead and edit to improve it (and have fun doing so... really!). But be aware that more often than not, Wikipedia sucks. And more often than not, Wikipedians suck too. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrad, I sympathize with you deeply. I don't know what to suggest as a solution. The pain is lessened with time if you continue editing. But it does take time. (I must admit I had my suspicions about the sockpuppet ItsLassieTime.) Attacks by unrecognized sockpuppets are ver hard to handle. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wrad, thanks for getting in touch and I'm sorry to hear that you are still demotivated by the Hamnet Shakespeare story. In my absense, other editors have kindly provided wise and helpful responses. I sense you are not seeking sympathy so much as you are seeking answers. However, answers do not come sugar-coated, and my answers (which are just my personal opinions) most certainly will not be.

The answer to the GA question is very simple: each individual GAN review is only as reliable as the editor who provides it. As such many GAN reviews are unreliable. Consequently we have a simple system in place whereby articles can be renominated and reviews can be challenged. WT:GAN is a hot page where editors highlight concerns they have found with GAN reviews and WP:GAR is a place where disagreements can be resolved.

Now onto the more general concerns...

I'm fed up of hearing about editors saying they were under attack, hurt, undermined, needing to defend themselves etc. I'm also fed up of editors presuming motivations on other editors over a medium which is utterly unreliable for conveying feelings. Keep your feelings and perceptions to yourself unless you have evidence to back up a complaint. See e.g. this excellent advice in a different context. The phrase "if you cannot stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen" springs to mind, but there is an alternative: make salad; I do so more often, as conflict increasingly bores me and there are many interesting things to do which avoid it. There is a counterpoint to WP:NPA which should perhaps be made more explicit: it is "take no criticism personally".

It is utterly and profoundly wrong to say that assuming good faith in one editor assumes bad faith in another. How? If one editor is critical of another, one can assume they honestly believe that without assuming their beliefs are correct. Your message contains multiple other presumptions that have no place on Wikipedia without evidence:

• "another user... must have been ticked at me for some reason" How do you know? What reason?
• "It seemed like no matter what I did or said I was the bad guy" Seemed to whom, you? Who said so?
• "Here's a diff where you say "...I am concerned and saddened by your emotional state regarding GAN. When several editors you respect do not notice an injustice you perceive,the question is why?" The answer, in your mind, was probably, "because of your emotional state"" What a presumption! Read the rest of the diff and you may find that the issue I raised was the lack of presented information, not your emotional state.

Life sucks: most people suffer a lot during their lives and we all die. It should not be so surprising that Wikipedia sucks too. But Wikipedia is a bold idea: if you want to contribute in spite of the difficulties, you are most welcome. If you don't after many bad experiences, every seasoned wikipedian most likely understands. Geometry guy 08:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me just say that this whole conversation is just hurting me a lot more than I already was hurting and you completely missed the whole point of my posting here. I'm sorry I ever tried to reconcile anything. I'm just going to bite my tongue on this, throw my hands up in the air, and give up. I think we'd better avoid each other's company for a long while. Wrad (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As you wish. From my perspective, this is water long under the bridge, and no reconciliation is necessary. I continue to respect you as a most excellent editor. You are welcome to contact me any time you like, but I understand if you do not wish to do so. Geometry guy 17:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think when there are unrecognized sockpuppets involved, it is harder to handle than just good faith editorial disputes. Those sockpuppets were not caught until later. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do confirm!

Hi Geometry guy,

I know you are very busy and not on wiki very much lately. However, I hope you can take the time to confirm your willingness to be on the panel of mentor/adviser plan (User:Mattisse/Plan) for which you and others have provided input at User talk:Mattisse/Plan, Arbitration Workshop and Proposed decision talk page. Previously, you said you were willing to be one of my mentors/advisers.

The ArbCom is in the process of rendering decision and have requested that my mentors/advisers confirm that they are aware of the plan and agree with their role in it. See Moving towards closure of the case. If you are still willing to serve as one of my mentors/advisers, and I fervently hope you are, I ask you to indicate your willingness by posting on the Proposed decision talk page.

I think this plan will work. I have learned a great deal from this arbitration and feel comfortable with my panel of mentors/advisers and trust their judgment.

Thank you so much. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to reassure you that I am online (mid-wikibreak) and will attend to this (and other posts) shortly. I looked at the plan and the main thing that caused me problems was the use of the word "punishment". Strong measures such as blocks should be preventative, not punitive, and aimed at improving the encyclopedia. They should never be regarded as punishments. An even better word than "preventative" is "protective". I would only be willing to block to protect you (including from yourself), the editors you interact with, and/or the encyclopedia. Any tweak you can make to reflect this philosophy would be much appreciated. Geometry guy 07:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

PS. I also got myself up to speed on RfArb developments. I plan to comment there in the next day or two.

• I am feeling quite discouraged and think the plan is hopeless. Tony1 listed unfounded accusations on the arbitration page[2][3] He refused my requests for feedback, and when asked by an arbitrator, gave a minimal retraction only in the context of taking the opportunity to provide multiple negative quotes about me by another editor that did not reflect reality. [4] This is the way wiki baggage gets added to my reputation. There is no way to defend myself against this outside of an arbitration. It is only because an arbitrator questioned him that Tony1 retracted to the degree he did. I must find a way of collecting this type of information for future attacks against me, as obviously the unwarranted attacks are going to continue. The only thing that was giving me hope was that the arbitrators had said that casting aspersions was a two-way street, and aspersions were not to be cast against me. Well, apparently it is a one-way street.
• As far as blocks as punishments, I do regard them as such. I have never been blocked in a situation where I have been warned first. Of course I would stop doing what ever it was if I were warned. Every block I have received has been without warning, including the last one of an indefinite block as the arbitration opened, so I can only consider them punishment. I would never continue editing in the face of a block warning. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 08:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • As far a modifying the plan, e.g. the word punishments (which I do feel is the right word but will modify it upon consensus), there are now rules somewhere on the talk proposed decision page about any modification of the plan. I can't find it now, but it is something about consensus among two or more mentors (I think) and then submission to ArbCom for permission. That page has become unmanagable. Many of the mentors accepting are accepting in the wrong place, but I understand why. Most of the time I can't find the place they are supposed to accept! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 09:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Tip: for smooth operation of wiki-markup-magic, copy the indenting characters of the previous comment (I changed it to ::** in this case to match your first bullet) and add your own preference for a bullet or an indent at the end of the string (Here I used ::***). As long as there isn't a newline, your thread and subsequent threads will be formatted beautifully. In the next paragraph I unindent slightly by using ::*:

  I have responded on the proposed decision talk page. Regarding your concerns, you have received excellent advice from Jayen there, and I have nothing to add.

  Regarding punishments, I think you should replace this with an approach based on your comments here. To be more precise, in a potential blocking situation, your plan should ask your mentors (and indeed any admin who is aware of the plan) to leave a very specific warning on your talk page that you will be blocked if a problematic editing pattern in a given context does not cease. Your plan should also contain an undertaking to follow this advice immediately, and to consult with mentors in case you disagree with the advice (e.g., from another admin). In this way, you can demonstrate your claim that you will always stop editing (in a particular context) when warned, and consequently you will rarely be blocked. Geometry guy 06:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  Jayen's advice is good in normal situations. It does not work when accusations are left to stand, uncontested and assumed to be warranted, to be collected by others in the future. Before, I would not have directly refuted accusations with evidence. I was unable to stand up for myself, so that when later the accusations were assumed to be true, I was unable to go back and find the evidence that they were not. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

  • (I noticed the "::*::" - you got it! :) I agree that in the face of unwarranted accusations, providing evidence in a calm way is usually a good response, and may avoid later problems. You can avoid escalating the conflict by saying something like "My understanding of the situation is different" before providing the diffs, to allow other editors to bow out gracefully. Miscommunication is a frequent source of conflict. Geometry guy 21:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps July update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time with me over my arbitration to sort things out. And thank you for your very wise advise to come up with a plan. I didn't want to do it, but actually it was helpful for me to think it through and do so. As far as modification of it, I may rest a while and then contact my advisers/mentors to see it there is consensus on a modification to present to ArbCom. Malleus Fatuorum agreed to be added back onto the list, but he is on a newer version of the plan, after June 24 accepted date. I feel comfortable with my list, including Malleus, and feel that these members will give me honest advise and not overlook problem behavior on my part. They have not done so in the past. Again, I thank you for your invaluable counsel. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't quite understand your editing wiki tip about indenting. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the thanks, Mattisse! I agree with your suggestion to rest a bit before revisiting the plan, but I think we should revisit it in a definite timescale. It is important to avoid giving critics any ammunition such as "now the arbitration case is over, Mattisse and her mentors have forgotten the plan and nothing has changed". In contrast, I am happy to read in your post that you have found it helpful to develop your plan, and also that you are keen to receive the advice of mentors who will not mince their words or overlook problems.

• As for the tip, the main thing is to avoid newlines, and follow the previous editor's indent: see the wikisource in the diff. Geometry guy 18:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • (space removed so double bullet shows as one bullet) When you say to "avoid newlines", do you mean and also follow the previous editor's indent? So that I would use the indent but on the same line, not a newline? I can't figure out that business. When I use the GA template, I haven't figured out out to modify it without screwing up the numbering. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • (indent now matches previous comment, so triple bullet shows as one bullet) Sorry, by "avoid newlines" I really mean "avoid blank lines" (i.e., two newlines in a row). I've edited this conversation to provide another example. The blank line before your reply causes a double bullet to appear. My own indent (of this reply) is wrong because it does not begin with the same pattern as yours, so again a double bullet appears. Can you fix it? Geometry guy 18:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can get rid of one of the the double bullet examples by removing the space between my last comment and yours about it. But I don't see a space between my comment and your last comment. I can fix the double bullet problem by removing the second bullet, but if I try to remove a space, per the first example, it ends up on the same line as your comment. The only way to do it is by removing the double bullet itself. Mysterious. Am I missing something obvious? —Mattisse (Talk) 19:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The bullets apply to one indentation level, i.e. "::", or ":::", for instance. Your double bullet would be removed if you changed ":::**" to "::**" or "::***", to match the comment you're indenting underneath, which begins "::**". --Malleus Fatuorum 13:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for abrupt disconnect last night (broadband problems) and thanks to Malleus again for providing the explanation I had in mind: as proof, I have changed the above to "::***" to produce the desired single bullet indent. Geometry guy 20:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

* Thanks, I had always wondered where on earth these double bullets were coming from, and had given up trying to figure it out. :) --JN466 19:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can an article be both GA and A?

Hi Geometry guy,

Can an A-class article simultaneously be GA-listed? I'm asking the question for practical reasons, given that such an article has appeared at GAR. [5] I know the community discussed de-coupling GA status from the article quality classification scheme, but I thought that idea didn't gain consensus; as a result, I suspect that articles shouldn't at present sport both. Majoreditor (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course an article can be listed at both simultaneously. A-class is a project-based assessment, nothing to do with GA or FA, and projects are free to grade as they like. It's not a matter of decoupling GA from other classification schemes anyway, as it has never been coupled to them. The GA criteria are perfectly clear, and an article either meets them or it doesn't. What projects choose to do is up to them. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift answers! Majoreditor (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to Malleus and Balloonman for responding in my absense. I fully agree with them. Geometry guy 17:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT bureucracy

Would you mind turning this into a discussion section? You have a valid point to make there, and though you are making it in a very effective way, why not take the three points here and discuss how this proposal measures up to each of them? That would be more productive, I think. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If it becomes obvious through dialogue that this quite unexpected proposal is a valid exception to community norms, I will be happy to contribute my view. Until then, I will do my best to support the consensus model that has led to Wikipedia's success. Geometry guy 23:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As the lack of respect shown to the community by introducing this ill-advised and ill-considered proposal as a fait accompli without any community discussion becomes increasingly obvious, I trust arbcom will be issuing an apology in the near future, lest it squander the increased respect it has gained since the new year. Geometry guy 06:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth, you have done a good job in smoothing the waters over this unfortunate episode. It is gracious of Kirill to tender his resignation over the issue, though unfortunate to lose an otherwise excellent arbiter. I share your open mindedness about the formation of some advisory body consisting of a cross section of experienced Wikipedians, but this was not the way to do it and may make it harder to realise that aim in the future. Geometry guy 21:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

My RfB

I must admit that I found your oppose to be one of the most thoughtful and constructive comments throughout the entire discussion. Thank you. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I trust you not to make any hasty decision in response, but reflect on it as the RfB develops and/or settles during the final day or two. If you are appointed now, I wish you every success in the new role, and have no doubt that you will rise to the challenge of proving your critics concerns were unfounded. If not, then I hope you are appointed when the time is right, "maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your life." :-) There's no rush. Best, Geometry guy 19:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I will most certainly all constructive take on board to improve upon my editing skills regardless of the outcome, though I think the result is all but clear at this point. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The possible outcomes are: successful, unsuccessful and withdraw. You certainly have the freedom to decide between one of the first two outcomes (letting a bureaucrat decide) and the third. 80% is normally considered successful at RfA, but I presume RfBs are scrutinized more closely at this level of support. You are undoubtedly more knowledgeable here than I am: I only wish to point out that you have a choice. Geometry guy 20:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well if I recall correctly, the threshold has historically been between 85% and 90%. I have considered withdrawing, but I've decided to ride it out, if for nothing else than my own edification. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That is fair enough. All I am suggesting is that if you show that you are more than happy to wait for a later opportunity, you may win round some critics, and may save the closing bureaucrat the trouble of providing a careful analysis in their conclusion. That does not necessarily mean withdrawing: the comment you have just made here demonstrates exactly the kind of maturity that should impress thoughtful editors. Geometry guy 20:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm personally looking forward to hearing the closing 'crat's rationale (if any), as it will very likely have the potential to set a precedent for future, similar nominations. And yes, I understand your point, and I will bear that in mind. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You never know Julian, one of the bureaucrats might decide to ignore all of the oppose votes on the grounds that(s)he doesn't agree with them. It's happened before. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

G-guy's certainly got to the heart of my feelings rather well; there really is no hurry... and giving the impression that you're chasing these positions is what caused my concerns. I'm sorry if that seems unfair especially as you didn't self-nom, but what (for me) would have confirmed your maturity, judgement and eventual readiness for 'cratship would have been if you'd told your nominator "I'm really grateful but I need more experience as an admin first and I've got plenty of other stuff to keep me busy for now, so ask me again in a year's time". I think your age has, probably rightly, led to more scrutiny than an older candidate may have had to endure, and you've coped extremely well with it (ironically, more maturely than many other editors who've taken up the torch on your behalf). As Malleus says though it's not a foregone conclusion yet, and I don't believe you'd be a disastrous appointment by any means. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 11:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Behaving"

Once again I thank you. (I will never be as calm as you, as I am about 100 years younger.) My advisers/mentors stepped up to the plate like champs. Now I can see it with a clearer head. My Plan actually covered this situation. I continue to believe that if known miscreants were not tolerated, and even encouraged by a band of protectors, Wikipedia would improve by 100%. Anyway, thank you. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You need to ensure your plan protects you during the (hopefully short) periods when your head is unclear. You already have undertaken to follow advice from your mentors even if you disagree with it. I would suggest, per this case, that if three advisors give common advice, this is an immediate cause to follow that advice strongly, perhaps even to the extent of posting only to your talk page for 8-24 hours.

Like Philcha, I have noticed that after things have settled, you are able to make an excellent contribution to the debate. CBM is an editor I greatly respect, so I am interested to see if you can find common ground and some consensus with him.

AGF is a subtle thing, especially when it comes to issues like baiting. You cannot know the mind of other editors, or their intentions, so you must assume good faith in all your comments about them. However there is a duck test for baiting: if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like duck, then it might as well be a duck, so you have to protect yourself accordingly, perhaps by withdrawing. Assume good faith in action and statements about other editors, but use the duck test for self-protection and withdrawal. Geometry guy 22:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope I haven't disappointed you. I don't know who CMB is. However, if you and Malleus were on that committee, I would feel differently. Also, John Carter, even though I don't agree with him on many, many issues, I do feel he is a stand-up guy. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a joiner Mattisse, so even if I'd been invited I would have refused. Perhaps I'm being naive, but I see nothing sinister in the setting up of this new committee. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Everything is fine from my point of view. CBM is Carl(CBM) and you have been engaging in interesting discussions with him. Geometry guy 00:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Overdetermined system

Two years ago, u created this article on overdetermined systems. Did you have any reliable resources for this lemma? In german wikipedia we are discussing this topic in the moment. A accordingly article was deleted long ago. In general the way of describing systems as overdetermined or underdetermined seems to be used just in schools, but is replaced by the concepts rang and solubility in higher mathematics ... Thanks for your attention. --WissensDürster (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

PR tweak?

Hi Geometry guy, I have noticed that there tend to be several peer reviews each month that are improperly archived in the same way - the person pastes in the the "This peer review has been closed" text, but does not replace the topic template with {{subst:PR/archive}}. Would it make sense to put in a hidden comment next to the topic with something like "To archive this PR, please replace the topic template with {{subst:PR/archive}}? (This is also a reminder to do the August PR maintenance). I have also posted this on Carl's talk page.

I also wonder what we should do with the SAPR archives - should some sort of inactive notice pointing to the new toolserver application be added? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I created some of this months PR stuff last month, but you seem to have done the rest. I tidied up a bit and let the bot know which archives are current (I've seen the post on CBM's page). Your other suggestions sound good, and I will look into them. I was glad to see that SAPRs are now more easily available on request. Geometry guy 21:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. If you have the time and interest, I am trying to figure out which PR stat is best to use at WP:FAS. I tabulated the number of PRs in the archive, the category, and the SAPR archive for several months here. If you have any idea why the PR archive and PR category are so different sometimes, or have a preference on which stat to use, I would appreciate hearing about it there. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help with FAS - I also noticed that the hidden comment <!--semi-automated peer review placeholder -- please do not edit or delete this comment--> is still in the PR template - removing this would save some space I think. I have also let Carl know about this, thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps August update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Maths articles

Hi, G-guy. I've just had a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Mathematics_GA_status, to which a link was posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles. When I asked where they wanted comments from GA reviewers, their place or ours, the response was close to "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." The main issue is about citations for info that mathematicians take for granted but the general public don't know, an doften would not understand when presented with it. I admit I'm unsympathetic to their complaints there - WP:V is a PITA for everyone, but ignoring it is worse (POV, "Randy from Boise", etc.) I had a quick look at Mathematics and Special relativity, and both are seriously under-cited. Special relativity also gave me the impression that these mathematicians live in a little world of their own. In particular they fail to realise that most non-specialist readers will switch off after a handful of equations - the impression I formed in the late stages of my schooldays was that mathematical aptitude is a specialised and quite rare talent, and the poor state of maths education does not help. Is it worth engaging in a dialogue with the mathematicians and, if so, who should do it? On the basis of my previous remarks I suspect I would not be an ideal candidate :-/ --Philcha (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I also noticed this thread and have commented on it. Please note that the GA requirements for inline cites are very specific and that editors have differing views on the role of inline citations in contributing to WP:V. GAs must be reliably sourced, and citations contribute to demonstrating that they are reliably sourced. I'd be interested to know what you think of Representation theory from the sourcing and/or GA perspective.

As for engaging with mathematical articles and editors, sure, it is a good thing to do, but as well as asking "who", you might also ask "when". Perhaps not in the middle of a dispute, which I believe is coloring the remarks of some editors, and maybe even your own choice of emphasis! In other circumstances, intelligent reviewers like yourself should be able to have a productive dialogue with mathematical editors. Geometry guy 20:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Flatterer :-)

About Representation theory, I don't think it stands a snowball's chance of passing GA at present:

• Very few citations, mostly supporting comments about the significance of aspects of the subject and none about the theory itself. To compare it with a subject I know fairly well (by WP standards), I'd expect a citation for a definition of "saurischian" (dinosaur) and for statements that X & Y were saurischians and for a diagram illustrating the characteristic hip configuration.
• I'd hope at least some of the subject could be expressed in more simply. I think this issue is at the heart of difficulties about maths articles, and I'm not sure if it can be resolved. It seem to be the most "all or nothing" subject I can think of: you have to learn a whole new dialect of English (and that's before learning the symbols); everything builds on several less advanced items, understanding of which appears to be an inescapable prerequisite; and you need at least as much concentration and short-term memory as for complex tactical calculations in chess. In other words, it's bloody difficult to explain to non-specialists like me. This appears to be a mathematician's idea of simple.
• I see a few phrases that look rather WP:PEACOCK to me, e.g. "A striking feature of representation theory is its pervasiveness in mathematics. There are two sides to this" or "This description points to two obvious generalizations" (obvious to whom?).
• En passant, considering the spat about alt text at WT:FAC, I'd love to see what would be considered adequate alt text for equations >-)

After this gloomy assessment I googled for the subject in other decent general-purpose encyclopedias (excluding well-known WP clones) and got nothing relevant - not even after adding encyclopedia names such as "encarta" or "britannica" to the search string. Searching within Encarta also got nothing relevant. Britannica online does not a have search facility. Google Books gave lots of textbooks for graduate-level mathematicians, i.e. no good for the general public. Even biographies of pioneers in the field are stuffed with symbols I don't understand. The title of Principal structures and methods of representation theory looked failrly introductory but was as Alien as the rest. Adding "simple" to the GB search string didn't help. I didn't dare try Google Scholar! There seems to be nothing useful in the "...for Dummies" or "... made Simple" series - don't laugh, "Modern Algebra made Simple" helped a friend of mine through a course after she (and I) found the head of department's book on the subject incomprehensible.

Are there any good popularisers of maths that we can look at for role models? Ideally explaining the serious concepts to non-specialists, as The Selfish Gene does for biology. --Philcha (talk) 06:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that this is an area of Wikipedia that needs attention. The same is true in science, but perhaps not the the extent it is in maths. My personal belief is that, because (as you say) learning maths is very similar to learning a foreign language and rapidly passes beyond the grasp of even the well-educated layperson, many of our maths articles have been written by and for other mathematicians... thus we've ended up with some very precise but inaccessible work. I find Wikipedia a useful resource when I quickly need to refresh my memory of, say, power factor correction to adapt some notes for a course I'm delivering, but I also teach maths at A-level and find many of Wikipedia's maths articles less than helpful. As you note, they frequently start with mathematical terms, dive straight in to equations without explaining the symbology (or force the reader to backtrack through half-a-dozen other articles), and are written in that peculiar imperative variety of English one only sees in maths ("Consider a situation such that..." Why?). I have no argument with getting technical in the meat of an article, but if it can't get across to a general reader why its subject is important enough to be written about here in the first place (basically, how is this notable?), I start to question. We are fortunate to have many highly able and talented mathematicians among our numbers, but I sometimes think we could do with more able and talented mathematical communicators too (G-guy being one of the exceptions, of course, as he falls into both categories!). EyeSerene^talk 09:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The Popularization of mathematics ch "Mathematics for the public" pp 41-51 might help.

I've also emailed Prof Ian Stewart (of The Science of Discworld and Evolving the Alien: The Science of Extraterrestrial Life), Prof Christopher Budd and Prof Adam McBride, all noted maths popularisers, if they can recommend any resources / examples to help in presenting maths to the general public. -Philcha (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A relevant issue is which articles are meant to be "popularizations". Articles such as Mathematics and Mathematical logic are meant to be broadly accessible, of course, but I don't think the same is true of articles on specialized topics such as representation theory.

In my mind, one goal of a Wikipedia article is to serve as a reference for readers who already know a little (or a lot) about the topic. A second goal is for the articles to be usable as a brief survey by a reader who does not know about the topic but has the background that would be required to learn it in a class. But our article on representation theory is not directly written for an audience of people who do not know what a group is. I don't think that doing so would suit our mission as an encyclopedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should try to cater for everyone as far as possible, and that some topics will necessarily only be fully understood by specialists (and neither is it our business to instruct; we're not Wikiversity). I believe the lead should always be accessible though, and your Representation theory example is a good one. While it does get fairly technical in places, the lead does a decent job of explaining what representation theory is and why it's important; to me it establishes notability. Unfortunately the next section goes straight into maths-speak in the first sentence ("Let V be a vector space over a field F"), which to anyone unfamiliar with the oddities of mathematical language comes across as a peculiar sentence (this isn't a criticism of the article authors by the way, it's more a plaintive observation on the mathematical world's shibboleths).

Re Philcha's concerns, I think at GA all we can realistically hope to do on many mathematical articles is check prose, MOS, stability and image compliance as far as possible, look for enough plain English that a layperson could leave the page with a grasp of the what and why (even though probably not the how), and in the absence of any third-party expertise, trust to the authors that coverage and sourcing is neutral, representative and broad. EyeSerene^talk 13:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Just in case it isn't obvious, I partly gave Representation theory as an example because I'm the main author (although I did start from an earlier material from Group representation: see the edit history). I completely agree with Philcha that it is falls well short of the GA standard, although we might disagree on how far short and why. It also demonstrates that, contrary to EyeSerene's kind words, I'm not generally a talented mathematical communicator nor a great mathematical popularizer.

With articles like this, one has to ask "what or who is Wikipedia for?" I have kept Representation theory on my watchlist since I wrote it, and have been heartened to find that every once in a while, someone fixes a typo. Apart from that, there has been little activity. Not many people in the world need or want to know about representation theory. Those few that do have not so far expressed dissatisfaction with what they have found. I would like to think that for someone who knows some undergraduate abstract algebra, the article provides a decent overview of a vast landscape (in mathematical terms) which continues to stimulate cutting edge mathematics. I don't know how to convert such an article into something that could conceivably pass GA. This is likely a case where an "Introduction to..." article would be worthwhile.

Since I haven't said this onwiki for a while, I might only bore one or two people if I say it again. Wikipedia is not a single monolithic encyclopedia, but is more like a family of nested encyclopedias with different roles and readers with different needs. That's not just my opinion, but the first sentence of Pillar One. This is a hard concept for universal processes to handle. I think GA is doing pretty well, considering, but the occasional challenge should not come as a surprise. Geometry guy 21:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. By the way I like the lower case m in your signature - it seems appropriately artistic. Geometry guy 22:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

kinda like e.e. cummings (probably though not definitely my favorite poet) or bell hooks. Ling.Nut (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

e.e cummings? I would have thought more like ee: eterneal equinox Giano (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The last thing we need is drama mongering. ceranthor 20:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The way to deal with drama mongering, if there is any (I've no idea and am not interested), is to starve it of oxygen by completely ignoring it. Geometry guy 20:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Transcluding and noincluding

What exactly is this? When you have <noinclude> in the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, what does that do? I've never been able to figure it out. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Text between <noinclude></noinclude> tags is not displayed when the page is transcluded on another page. A common use for this is documentation for templates. The documentation (or a link to a documentation subpage) is put between noinclude tags, so that you can see it if you go to Template:Foo, but not on page Bar where {{Foo}} is used. In the case of Wikipedia:Good article criteria the noinclude tags are used so that if you put {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria}} on another page you only get the list of criteria, and not the introductory paragraph, the "what is not a good article", the see also, etc. Dr pda (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr pda summarized it more concisely that I could. Here is the longer version.

Sometimes people want to include some of the contents of one page in another. For example, it is handy to remind people that 1a requires that the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Here I am not retyping, but actually using the GA criteria pages to provide the text (I italicize it here for emphasis). If the GA criterion changes, then my talk page will change automatically. This technique is most commonly used with templates, such as infoboxes, navigation toolbars, and talk page banners. Transcluding these templates means that information stored in one page (the template) is copied onto another. It isn't limited to templates, though: material from any page can be transcluded (copied into) any other. I could transclude your entire talk page right in the middle of this paragraph by adding {{User talk:Mattisse}} to the source of this page. (Try removing the nowiki's in the edit preview, but then don't panic or save it!)

Often however, there is some information on the source page that you want to copy, and some information that you don't. In my above example, all I wanted to read was criterion 1a, not the whole page. Consequently the main GA criteria are stored in a template, known as {{GAC}}, which takes a parameter, just like infoboxes and the like do, so that {{GAC|1a}} will display criterion 1a, if in the source. (Ironically, I'm transcluding templates namely {{tl}} and {{tlp}} to display these templates nicely :)

Sometimes it is useful to prevent parts of a page being transcluded (copied into) another: that is what <noinclude> is for. If you began your talk page with <noinclude> and ended it with </noinclude>, then my dumb idea to transclude your talk page here would result in nothing. More usefully however, it can prevent parts of a page from being copied onto other pages. An obvious example is template documentation: you want the template page to say what the template does, but this information should not appear when the template is copied into another page. At WP:WIAGA it is used for another reason: WikiProjects sometimes want to include a copy of the criteria in their WikiProject ratings. However, they just want the bare criteria, not the headers, or the footnotes. Consequently, "noincludes" are wrapped around these data. Geometry guy 22:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Taking an extended break from GA-related matters

I have two left to complete and will not be completing more. I hope you continue to be on my panel of adivors/mentors dispite my bailing out of GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure that is fine. I hope the break refreshes you. I'll be happy to advise if other issues crop up, and hope you will soon find that GA is a nice place to work again. Geometry guy 23:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

kind words

Thank you for your kind words on my talk page. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

...and by the way, as I said at the GAR, "We need an option to move from GAR straight back to ON HOLD, skipping relisting the nom and waiting in line." Ling.Nut (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This can happen (and has) with agreement of reviewer and nominator. It doesn't usually happen when reviewer and nominator have clashed in which case it is better to start a new review with a new reviewer. However, I don't understand what you mean by "waiting in line". If Moni is happy to renominate and you are happy to review, you can have the article on hold by tomorrow. Geometry guy 10:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that your (G-guy) interpretation of what GAR is for differs somewhat from mine, but I'm quite prepared to defer to you on that matter. One thing that does strike me as incongruous though is your evident enthusiasm for GA's educational role—which I think is laudable and worthwhile—but your unwillingness to extend that educational remit to the reviewers. Which is, I think, at the heart of our disagreement; before we can educate the masses we have to educate ourselves. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm keen to educate reviewers, and in that respect I don't distinguish between potential reviewers and inexperienced reviewers; I'm even keen to help educated reviewers sing from one page, but that page needs to be determined by consensus (where reviewers actually read the guidelines) and a common mission (and here I believe you and I are in a great deal of agreement). It is my contention that User:Noloop has learned a lot from the recent GAR. but he/she would have learnt an awful lot more, and with a clearer message, if other reviewers had not simply trashed the review, but instead tried to add further comments to make it better.

Your role as a wild card is valuable, but if on occasion you decide instead not to trash the crap that is going on here, but instead find a small amount of value and encourage it, it could lead to valuable returns. As for education of reviewers: GAR can only provide limited support; why not propose something new? Geometry guy 23:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. So your view is that I never find "a small amount of value and encourage it"? That's certainly not my view, which would be closer to ... well, who cares. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no view on what you "never" or "always" do, and believe on the contrary that your input to Wikipedia is much more valuable, otherwise I would not reply to your comments! :) Geometry guy 23:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If you only look at the GAR page, wholly decontextualized, it appears as though poor Noloops is a GAR n00b who got seriously WP:BITTEN. But there's a huge subtext: apparently one or more editors have a running argument with him/her, are starting an RFC etc., and it very unfortunately all got carried onto GAR. Hopefully the RfC will attract sane, calm, mature voices and perspectives to pour oil on the waters of that other dispute. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Request

A couple months back, you changed WP:FACL and WP:FLCL in accordance with the changes to the archiving system. Could you do the same for Wikipedia:Featured articles/Review list? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you could create a similar lists for Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates, I would be much obliged. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's the page: Template:CF/Wikipedia featured article review candidates. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I will look at it this weekend. Geometry guy 23:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw you got there before me. I tried an improvement but it didn't work. Geometry guy 21:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. How would I go about making one for Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Are the articles concerned in a single category? If so VeblenBot can list that category (just let me know, as Carl has kindly given me access to the controls). Then it will be the same as the other cases. Geometry guy 23:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia featured list removal candidates. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I added it. Unless I made a typo, the VeblenBot page will appear within 1 hour. If I made a typo, you're welcome to reply here, but please allow me to sleep for 7-9 hours before responding :-) Geometry guy 23:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; one question. Is it Template:CF/Wikipedia featured list review candidates where I should paste the code? Sleep well. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nearly. Your mission is to turn the redlinks at User:VeblenBot/C/Wikipedia featured list removal candidates into something beautiful. Good luck. :-) Geometry guy 07:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, done. Thanks for your help, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

File:WPsize.png

Now that Wikipedia has hit 3 million wondering if we should update this?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. User:Huggle is responsible for the version which got copied to Commons. My contributions have now been deleted in the bizarre process that constitutes wikimedia image management. Geometry guy 21:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Algorithm/GA1

You may be interested to read this GA review, which stands in contrast to the wonderful one by Protonk that we saw recently. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear; I'd been toying with the idea of reviewing that one myself. I'd have to agree though that the ultimatum to change the citation style "or else" is really not the best way to win friends and influence people. I'd go so far as to say that if it's delisted for that reason alone then I'll relist it immediately and start a new GAR. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The article does have other issues, and could stand a lot of improvement, especially in the lower parts. So I just now left a comment that it may be better to delist the article and review it again once the content is improved. In general, reviews like Talk:Mathematics_and_art/GA1 are very helpful for bringing out content issues (although that review politely uses the term "minor issues" for the main issues with the article). Reviews that place stylistic concerns above content are much less useful, since it is far from obvious why the reviewer cannot simply fix the problems directly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. The reason I hesitated over the review was because I couldn't decide between a straightforward delisting or an extensive review that perhaps nobody would respond to. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Carl, good to hear from you, and sorry I wasn't around to reply until now (many thanks to Malleus for stepping in). It is really valuable to reviewers and content review processes when content experts (especially uninvolved ones) comment on reviews, both to highlight what is helpful, and to raise concerns when review comments are not helpful. Thanks to your comment, several editors are now looking at this article. While the result may be a delist as you suggest, I hope the review will now generate a clearer sense of direction on how to improve the article. Geometry guy 21:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There's never any hurry to respond, of course; it never occurred to me that you didn't respond quickly enough. If I really wanted a response I would give at least a week before following up. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Unrecognition

I contributed to the Talk:Translation (geometry) article but it doesn't appear in the readout. Why is that?WFPM (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comment was lost in a hidden comment beginning <!--. I've fixed it, but was not able to sign on your behalf, so I encourage you to sign the message again with four tildes. Thanks, Geometry guy 20:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thread

he's only had check user a brief while... and more importantly, this is a well-known drama magnet. he knew sandy, G-guy, malleus, OR, and other heavy-hitters would pounce from various directions. I'd say butterflies are normal and forgivable. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have (unpublished) reason to believe J.delanoy expected me to "pounce" on him or this? If not, please don't put words in his mouth. I did react once others started pouncing on him on this page, questioning his decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) What's this talk of proof? you act as if i am accusing you, or anyone, of anything. Nope, furthest from my mind. Use common sense. Right now, go block SlimVirgin, or Giano, or Geogre, or OR, or malleus, or any other controversial editor. You will get tons of flack from all sides, simply because they are who they are. Ditto for Mattisse. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Your words. "he knew sandy ...would pounce ..." Sounds pretty definitive. Unless you know he knew that, it's offensive and presumptuous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the opinion you're expressing here is so far off target that it sounds like you and your common sense are in different time zones. I could just as well argue that "controversial editors" like those you named very often get blocked because of who they are, and that any resulting uproar is a response to that injustice. Would you claim that Mattisse did not, in this particular case at least though, deserve to be blocked? Not for the length of time that she was, I don't think, but blocked nevertheless? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Echo. Ling.Nut, please reacquaint yourself with your common sense. Flinging arrows and insulting and disrespecting the efforts of so many editors, with no concrete proposals for how to solve a clear problem-- as you did on my talk page-- is not helpful to anyone. This sort of behavior is precisely what confuses Mattisse, IMO. Everyone has been trying to help. Stop insulting and disrespecting, and start offering concrete solutions to a real problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Wow, sandy, you're really touchy. Let me say...mmm. first, I deeply apologize if my comments disturbed you. Second, I said (quote) "he knew sandy, G-guy, malleus, OR, and other heavy-hitters would pounce" I apologize that your name is first on the list, but note that G-guy's is immediately behind yours. Have you ever seen G-guy "pounce" on anyone, in the sense of an attack? There is no hint intended that you personally, or anyone, would launch a personal attack. No, rather, i am suggesting that drama was guaranteed to follow, as editors "pounce on the topic." Third, he himself said "I expected to be eaten alive.". I dunno what he meant by that, but certainly he expected drama. malleus, you ... what can i say..? You are totally changing the subject, and in the process, putting words in my mouth. I was only trying to cut poor j.delanoy some slack. I was not making any assertions about any other topic. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You bet I'm touchy. It is my *opinion* (to which I'm entitled) that Philcha, Silktork and you have harmed Mattisse more than helped her, and she hasn't had a fair shake. Yet when I try to step in and help, you have outrageously questioned my motives and make absurdly unfair statements on my talk page. If you weren't such an experienced editor and good person, I'd be reminding you that you really need to review WP:AGF. Instead, I ask you to calm down and regain your senses, and read what is written on my page, not what you imagine. "Floating a proposal" is just that: if you can improve, discuss concrete issues, but stop flinging darts and disrespecting and insulting others' good intentions. J.delanoy expected to be eaten alive? Did he say "by Sandy"? If not, don't use my name. You're modeling exactly the sort of behavior that gets Mattisse into trouble. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

PS. I've been part of a successful mentorship. Have you? I've attempted to model this mentorship after one that was successful. Your questioning of others' motives, and completely unsubstantiated claims that we're trying to get her banned, is outrageous and plainly insulting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)