User talk:Geometry guy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Question 2 Oscar nominee? 3 Good article reassessment/British International School Vietnam/1 4 A note 5 Peer review 6 GAR - Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology 7 PR and GAR 8 Really? 9 A sign of the end times? Or a point? 10 Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1 11 Scientology in Germany 12 WP:FACL 13 New GA reassessment system 14 GA Sweeps June update 15 Need an opinion 16 Mattisse forums 17 GAR 18 First trial GAR 19 Good article Review of Ohlone 20 Odd PR question 21 Shear mapping 22 PR request 23 they are broken 24 A really silly question, I know, but I have to ask 25 CIA 26 Shaken, not stirred 27 WP:Good article reassessment/Exploration of Jupiter/1 28 Still hurting... 29 Please do confirm! 30 GA Sweeps July update 31 Thank you 32 Can an article be both GA and A?

Welcome to my (rather minimalist) user and user talk page: please leave comments, questions, complaints, or just general chat below. I can't promise to reply, but if I do I will reply here: if I take a while I will drop a note on your talk page. Please provide direct links to issues you raise. I like to help out and have experience with templates, but my wikitime is limited. I have access to admin tools, but I don't use them to deal with vandalism or editor conduct.

"Official" abbreviations of my username include G'guy and G-guy. I promise I will only be mildly irritated by other approximations :-)

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

[edit] Question

I tried to closed the Talk:1918 flu pandemic/GA1. However, I cannot find the page that explains how to close it and to open a community GAR, nor can I find the page where I asked you what to do and you gave me instructions. Sorry to ask you to fix it, but I am just too tired to figure it our right now. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've set up the link for you to follow to request a community reassessment at the top of Talk:1918 flu pandemic. Geometry guy 09:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. Sorry, but I am still not thinking very clearly. In the last day or so, the article has been improved and my complaints fixed. My only objection now is that it contains two long lists, "Notable fatalities" and "Notable survivors" which are arbitrary, in my opinion, and not referenced completely. I have asked that the lists be removed. Do you agree that such lists are inappropriate? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Concerning lists, WP:EMBED does not forbid them, but discourages their use. In this case, I agree that both lists are inappropriate. The question then is should they simply be removed or converted to prose? A priori it would seem to me that fatalities are more notable than survivors (since almost everyone was exposed and c.97% survived). However, the fatalities are either individually sourced, or rely on what looks to me like primary source material. In contrast, there appears to be a secondary source (Collier) that discusses notable survivors! So the situation is a bit confused.

If the source material supports it, it might be worth having a paragraph mentioning perhaps 5-6 notable fatalities and contrasting this with a notable survivor. Otherwise the whole section could be dropped. If you can't reach agreement with article editors, then further input from a community GAR would be valuable. Geometry guy 22:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Oscar nominee?

I don't have "GeometryGuy's saintlike patience" either

Will you collect your Oscar before or after your Nobel Peace prize? --Philcha (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha. Afterwards, obviously, and the Nobel committee will be very pissed off! Geometry guy 20:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you've redeemed yourself in the eyes of the Nobel committee - what are you going to do for a hat-trick? --Philcha (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I should probably give the prize to Ling, for refocusing the discussion. Geometry guy 19:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Good article reassessment/British International School Vietnam/1

The nominator wants to "formally withdraw" the GAR request that led to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/British International School Vietnam/1. I guess he doesn't want to see another "fail" on the article's rap-sheet. OTOH the GAR does contain some useful pointers on how to improve the article. What do you suggest? --Philcha (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It is rarely a good idea to guess another editor's motivations: better to ask explicitly if you need to know. However, I'm not generally sympathetic to the "fail on the rap sheet" standpoint: ArticleHistory should document all article assessments, and uses the phrase "not listed" in place of "fail". Some editors regard this as political correctness; I view it as more accurate and polite. Hence I would close the reassessment as "Withdrawn by nominator" and add it to ArticleHistory. If your guess is correct, we'll hear about it. A compromise would be to add a hatnote to the review linking to the community GAR, but I don't see a good case for doing that here. Geometry guy 19:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Done (I think) -Philcha (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but this didn't actually achieve the result you intended. GAR/link can handle a closed review (use "status=not listed" - try it) but it is much better to add the reassessment to the ArticleHistory and remove the GAR/link template. A useful tool is {{subst:GAR/AH}}: substitute it after the most recent action in ArticleHistory, filling in the blanks.

One matter of taste: I like to bold the reason for closure "Withdrawn by nominator" and then add a few words. In this case I would probably have said "Detailed suggestions for improvements to meet the criteria can be found below". It lets editors know that the GAR contains useful info, rather than being a waste of time that was closed on a technicality.

Let me know when my "saintlike patience" performance ceases to be Oscar material and starts to resemble "irritatingly patronising" :-) Geometry guy 19:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

PS. I recommend to anyone interested in helping out at GAR that they watchlist User:VeblenBot/C/GAR, which tracks active nominations.

I fixed the talk page. Geometry guy 21:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:GAR is trying to squeeze a quart into a pint pot - like ]WP:GAN, it's a very crowded page. Perhaps it should say it covers onlt the "paperwork" for the commonest cases, "for full instructions see ..." a page that probably you'll have to write :-) Philcha (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody reads the instructions :-) There are already too many. Geometry guy 22:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A note

I've been watching the Mattisse case but am unwilling to comment there as there are many editors who know her behaviour better than I do and can cite diffs on all sides. Given the comments I've read, I'm willing to stipulate without seeing evidence that she's been a very valuable editor. Since you're one of the ten most sensible people on Wikipedia, I was thinking that perhaps I could drop a comment on your talk page on the topic: not to ask you to proxy for me so much as to give you a sense of what my concern about Mattisse is. I'm confident that any solution you support at the Arbcom case would be a good outcome.

In a nutshell, my limited exposure to Mattisse makes me hope I never have to interact with her. Anyone who can be as unpleasant as she has managed to be when she has lost her cool is someone I want to cross the street to get away from. Interaction with her doesn't seem worth the risk. I wouldn't not post a FAC for fear of running into her, but I would never comment on one of her articles at FAC or GAN. I would be alarmed if she showed up at a page I was working on. I think this is unhealthy, that others feel the same way, and that this is what needs to be fixed.

It seems analogous to a workplace where one might have to fire an employee whose performance is exemplary but who has a fatal flaw -- a violent temper, perhaps. Volunteer workers are notoriously difficult to fire -- ask anyone who's run a charity -- but sometimes it's necessary; and sometimes it's best for the group to exclude someone who may even be salvageable, just because the cost to the group of the salvage is too high. Might that be the case here? I am not sure. Even when one makes such a decision one has a responsibility to treat people as humans, not cogs, but there is also an obligation to be sure the person fits with the other cogs.

You know Mattisse much better than I do, and I trust your judgement. I hope you'll propose whatever you think will work best. Mike Christie (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for commenting Mike - it is always good to hear from you. I understand the concerns you have raised and am contributing what I can to the RfArb. Two of the arbitrators I most respect and admire have taken an active interest in the case, so I am confident that there will be a positive resolution, despite the difficulty in finding such a resolution. I am saddened by the extent of the mutual fear. I think a lot could be accomplished by a determination on all sides not to be afraid. Non-admins like Mattisse have no sticks and stones, just words; wise admins use their words in strong preference to their tools. Words are nothing to be scared of, nor anything to avoid. I'm rarely upset when another editor chooses their words badly. I'm more likely to be upset when I do. Geometry guy 22:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think words are more powerful here than in in-person and social contexts, because we have almost no other channels of communication. It's also not so much fear of the words as of the consequences of the words; I don't mind a few negative remarks, and if I saw vandalism of my talk page as the main risk I would be unconcerned. But a knowledgeable editor with ill-will towards another can genuinely damage the review processes and talk page discussions that mediate a currency many of the best editors care about -- respect and collegiality. I'm not ready to assert that's what Mattisse does or would do, but I would like to feel confident that the opposite is true -- that she would definitely not do any such thing. Mike Christie (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that Mattisse (arguably often mistakenly) distrusts some other editors rather than harbours malice towards them, but that this distrust occassionally erupts into upsetting interpersonal clashes. Such conflicts obviously damage respect and collegiality between those involved, and can get in the way of fostering a respectful collegiate atmosphere between others. However, in my view, editors who are interested in promoting a collegiate atmosphere tend to focus on the edit, not the editor, and the content, not the personality clashes. I tend to ignore those parts of a review or talk page discussion where personal attacks, or allegations of personal attacks, are being made: that's the problem of the editors involved, although I'm sometimes willing to help out in a more appropriate forum, such as user talk or dispute resolution.

Far more harmful, I think, to review and talk page processes, are cases where an editor's contributions are driven by an agenda or a desire to push a point of view, and the contributions and conflicts aim to undermine those who do not support the agenda or point of view. I have not seen compelling evidence that Mattisse is such an agenda-driven editor. She has made some angry and offensive remarks towards myself and some editors I greatly respect, such as Moni3, Jbmurray and Malleus, but not with any ruthless determination, nor with an obvious motive beyond insecurity and frustration. Geometry guy 20:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

Hi Geometry guy, I would be much obliged if you could keep an eye on this peer review, to help make or keep the article honest. Thanks, Jayen466 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I watchlisted it, but can't promise anything. Geometry guy 21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GAR - Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology

This GAR has been open now for well over two weeks. You asked for further input from editors that had previously voiced concerns. Maunus (talk · contribs) changed from "Modify then Keep" to now simply Keep [1]. Yobmod (talk · contribs) has made positive comments about improvements to the article, and about the research done on the article by Awadewit (talk · contribs), and has also changed from a prior "Neutral" position to also now Keep [2].

Unfortunately, a significant portion of text at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1 (even after you wisely moved material to its talk page) is taken up with discussion not directly related to the GAR itself - discussion that could take place at the article's talk page, or at its peer review page. I think it is time now to close this GAR as Keep, especially considering the multiple editors changing from other positions to Keep, and allow for other discussion about minutiae and detail to take place elsewhere. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Erm, yes. I am well aware of the state of the reassessment, but thank you for adding your summary and view. Geometry guy 06:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it not a positive step that multiple editors have switched from prior positions, and are now in favor of keeping the article's GA quality status rating? Cirt (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it is a step that I encouraged by asking editors to reevaluate their positions in the light of article improvements and discussion at the GAR. Geometry guy 06:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Great, thank you for acknowledging the shift in these editors' positions in favor of keeping the article's GA quality status. Cirt (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have read all editors comments at the GAR several times, and am following the forming consensus more than I am acknowledging it. I appreciate that you probably contribute in parts of Wikipedia where consensus is established in a somewhat adversarial way and that this involves making sure that your point of view is heard. In my contributions to GAR, I try to encourage a more inquisitorial approach, where editors collaborate to reach consensus on whether an article meets the criteria. In this respect, I very much appreciated that after I replied here to your comments and alleviated your concerns, you added helpful comments to multiple other ongoing community reassessments. Thank you and I hope you will continue to follow some of them. Geometry guy 19:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, both for your kind words, and your professional tact throughout. Cirt (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind remark. I don't like to let a positive gesture to go unnoticed. Geometry guy 20:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Geometry guy (talk · contribs), I am curious why you only thanked SilkTork (talk · contribs) for providing further input [3], and not also thanked editors that have recently commented with further input such as Yobmod (talk · contribs) and Maunus (talk · contribs) ? Cirt (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Because he replied to my message on his talk page. Geometry guy 06:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Cirt (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I greatly appreciate you contributing further to GAR discussions despite having found this GAR difficult. Thank you. Geometry guy 22:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] PR and GAR

I can't find where I saw it, and I've checked WT:GAN, WT:GAR and WTGA and archives back to early 2008 ("before my time") for "peer rev" and "class" (in case of e.g. "A-class") and found nothing. However I remember seeing the reasoning that dragging out a PR would preserve the status of a GA that looked likely to fail GAR. Perhaps it was in a review of a particular artcile - if so, finding a needle in a haystack might be easier. In any case: the reasoning's simple enough; and WP:GAR does not mention any contra-indications. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Really?

[4] = Really? Does this type of minutiae of detail really need to hold up the GAR and the deliberations of the article's GA status? Really? This seems so silly and not what the GAR process is for. This GAR page has become railroaded into being a catch-all for any complaint that someone wants to bring up about the article to try to further slow down the GAR process from ever closing, and discussion unrelated to the GA status of the article itself. Cirt (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't quite understand your concern. I stated that the matter was not a GA issue and you are concerned that it will hold up the GAR. No it won't. The GAR issue is that three editors, Silktork, Philcha and Jayen, believe that the article does not currently meet the GA criteria. Some of their concerns can be addressed by consensus changes to the article. Other of their concerns may prove to be unfounded. Geometry guy 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

My concern is taking up space on the GAR page with threaded discussion about something that is immaterial to keeping the GA status of the article itself. Cirt (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Geometry guy 22:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Cirt (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A sign of the end times? Or a point?

I leave GA for a while, come back and we have noms for the entrances to neighborhoods? Where's that much-linked essay about the manhole outside some guy's house when you need it [ahh, found it]... is this an excursion into WP:POINT? Ling.Nut (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't read a trend from one nomination, especially not from this nominator. Geometry guy 21:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1

I'm afraid that I may have to bow out of the Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology GAR soon. There is a certain point at which the time I spend on a Wikipedia-related item reaches diminishing returns. As it is the summer, I usually spend the bulk of each day writing my dissertation. I like to come home and relax with Wikipedia and achieve something somewhat substantial with my editing. Unfortunately, I'm not really sure how far we are really progressing with the GAR. As I can only really respond once every day or so, I may simply have to let other editors finish the work. I hope you understand. Awadewit (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit. I do understand. GAR is not the most relaxing way to spend one's wikitime, and I'm sorry it has drawn you away from more pleasant and productive editing. Progress has been made, but it has been slow. It has been on my mind to close, or ask someone else to close, the discussion this weekend or shortly thereafter. I hope at least that some ideas for future improvement have been generated. Geometry guy 21:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Further to this, EyeSerene has kindly offered to close the reassessment in the near future. I fully support his analysis. Geometry guy 23:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology in Germany

I'm rescinding my involvement in this article as I blocked a user for removing cited information after he was clearly warned for it and have been accused of being an involved admin. I know you have previous involvement. I wanted to let you know I will no longer be involved in it and an admin needs to watch it. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In my view the unblocking and criticism of your actions was totally unnecessary and did nothing to improve the encyclopedia. It also shows a poor understanding of the meaning of "involved" in this context.

As I state at the top of this talk page, I don't use the admin tools for editor conduct issues: I leave the easy cases to others, and prefer dialogue for the hard ones (if I get involved at all). If I did, I'd likely get into a similar situation and be pissed off if reprimanded for not blocking according to the rules. I am continuing to watchlist the article, and will protect m:The wrong version if necessary. Geometry guy 21:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[5] 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 ItsLassieTime.) 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)

[edit] 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[6][7] 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. [8] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. [9] 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)