User talk:Geometry guy/Archive 20

My date of birth

Thanks so much for your remarks over on Talk:Jimmy Wales. I added a response there, and I'm also making some edits (in a moment) to: Talk:Jimmy Wales/Birthdate.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this — your analysis of the evidence more or less lines up with mine :)

I will comment further there later today and see if I can move the article away from in-house trivia, unreliable sources and OR. Geometry guy 10:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Mervyn Emrys

Hi, I'm not anti-Mervyn Emrys per se and I have not had any personal dealings with him. Having read a violent diatribe against the decision of a GAN reviewer (who might have made a "wrong" decision) I don't see why unacceptable force from the nominator should overturn the system, without proper considered and quiet refection.Pyrotec (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither am I, but I agree he has been disruptive, and I am aware of similar disruption in the past. I am not defending him. The GAN review was perfectly correct. Let it rest so, rather than stir it up any more. Geometry guy 00:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I got your message after I had posted the one above; and then we edit conflicted on this page. The short answer is no my contribution will not help solve what Mervyn Emrys sees as the problem. I will take it out.Pyrotec (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. It is his problem, not ours: he can learn to deal with GA or ignore it. Geometry guy 00:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

hello

I am sorry we had that dust up. I have a great deal of respect for you—the way you handle situations. I trust your judgment most of all. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mattisse and thanks for your kind remarks. That is water long under the bridge as far as I am concerned: disagreements like that are inevitable on Wikipedia and I never regard them as grounds for enmity. Please don't trust me too much, though; I am fallible like anyone else :) Geometry guy 09:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Live with it, or leave it

• Live with it, or leave it Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

  Quantum mechanics also has superpositions of states. Geometry guy 22:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm happy to look at those articles, but just on the face of it, I don't understand their connection to my little monologue... unless you referring to this: "...quantum mechanics allows the counterintuitive phenomenon that sometimes when there are more ways for a thing to happen, the chance that it happens goes down." Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

  It was simply a joke: in quantum theory there are mixed states in which (e.g.) a particle is neither spinning to the left or to the right. A hadron state might be neither a proton nor a neutron, but a mixture. And you or I might be in a superposition of states, one being "live with it", the other being "leave it". In such a state, neither or both is true.

  Sadly, both of us are probably too large (all human beings are) for quantum effects to be significant, and also, the linked Wikipedia articles are not very good. Geometry guy 23:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

So who's going to write "Schrodinger's editor"? --Philcha (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And whom should we use as a paradigm? :-) --Philcha (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can't tell whether a user is vandalising or not until we check their edits, so I guess we all exist in a superimposed vandal/non-vandal waveform that's collapsed by a visit to ANI (and on a kind-of related matter, if we're reviewing an article we can't determine how it will develop; but if we're the ones developing the article we can't predict how its review will turn out). ...maybe stretching things on that last one :P EyeSerene^talk 00:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC regarding WP:TERRORIST

Hi: You're probably watching the WT:WTA talk page, but if not, I wanted to let you know I've set up an RFC to get some outside discussion there, and to encourage slightly more formal statements than our more freewheeling discussion thus far. Ray^Talk 17:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive my bluntness, but that was a stupid thing to do, IMO. Constructive discussion was taking place thanks to the input of a new editor. Now everyone is retreating to entrenched positions. Geometry guy 19:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It may very well have been. If so, a lesson of sorts for me, and my apologies for the fallout. Ray^Talk 20:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize. There's usually something good that can be drawn out of any situation. Geometry guy 20:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Origin of Species

Hi, G-Guy, I'd like to ask a big favour. I'm GA-reviewing Origin of Species and have a strong feeling about 1 aspect. I'd be grateful if you could look over the article - not in detail, just your general impression. Please don't look at the GA review page first, I'd like your spontaneous and unbiassed opinion. If you comment, please do so at the review page. All the best, --Philcha (talk) 08:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

God, and I thought I was a tough reviewer! However I do think they've conserved too much of the article as it was 2 years ago, and need to do some re-thinking. Many thanks for your help, I hope you've kept count of the favours I owe you and remember to call them in. --Philcha (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but could you please give at the GA review page a few examples of the "non-neutral prose" you mentioned. Perhaps dave and Rusty have got so immersed in the article that they see what they expect to see, etc. - a trap I sometimes fall into.--Philcha (talk)

I'm not as tough a reviewer as it seems. The article is very close to GA, but will struggle to go further without getting to grips with the problems I mentioned. I am, of course, watchlisting the review, and have noticed the request for examples. Geometry guy 09:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Re "The article is very close to GA, but will struggle to go further, ..." that's much the same as Malleus' judgement, and mine is fairly similar, except I feel more strongly that the "plot summary" will strain the attention span of non-specialists. Sounds like we all have an eye on the fact that this is the 150th anniversary so the article has a strong claim for the front page if it reaches FA. --Philcha (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This hadn't crossed my mind. I don't pay much attention to FA and the main page. In some ways they are a kind of marketing which misrepresents a faulty product: millions of articles which don't even comply with basic policy standards. I'm more interested in encouraging the creation of decent content on a broad scale than elite content on a sparse scale, although I do recognise the value of the latter. Geometry guy 11:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree, which is why I have no plans to submit anything for FA (because of my aversion to time-consuming nit-picking rather than to "elite content") and have produced only a couple of DYKs (one just to make a point about an article I rescued from what I considered an abuse of AfD). However it would be a criminal waste of an opportunity if we didn't one or two Darwin-related articles well on the way to FA this year. -Philcha (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review is getting full (Apr 05, 12:35 UTC)

The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 2035141 out of 2048000 bytes (12859 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi G-guy, I have done the partial transclusion trick for everything larger than 9000 here and when I look at the page size on wp:pr/d (listed by date) it is down to 1220854/2048000 bytes. However, when I look at WP:PR it is much larger. Not sure what the problem is. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Dr pda fixed the problem - thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Page move during a GA

I reviewed Talk:Action of 14–17 April 1809/GA1 and during the course of it we moved the article to a new page Troude's expedition to the Caribbean. How do I handle this for the GA Review archiving? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It suffices to move the review subpage to match, if I recall correctly. You can bypass any redirects if you want. Geometry guy 20:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hinduism talk page

Hi Geometry guy. There is a discussion on the Hinduism talk page related to NPOV and conflicts of interest issues etc. I am a new user, but I think you may want to take a look at it. The subject title being "Encyclopedia / propaganda ??". The subject is very much related to the last delisting of the article. You may discover the reasons for the continuous, disturbing, bad language in the article. It also requires the attention of some uninvolved administrators. Here's the Talk:Hinduism#Encyclopedia / propaganda ? ?.117.198.52.119 (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Please don't edit closed GAR discussions. Thanks. Geometry guy 19:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Geometry guy's Day!

Geometry guy has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Geometry guy's day! For your indispensable work with Good Articles, enjoy being the Star of the day, Geometry guy! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 04:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC) If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox.

You are most kind! Anyway, it is a pleasure helping GA and its enthusiastic team of reviewers! Geometry guy 19:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hinduism talk page

Hi Geometry guy. Congratulations on the latest medal of honour. I had put the post there as I was under threat of having the issue suppressed on the relevant talk page and did not know about any other avenues. Will not do so in future.Civilizededucation (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC).

You are welcome to ask me for input to the page again. I do have some comments, but found the discussion at the time too confrontational. If you can make extra efforts to steer the conversation towards collegiate and collaborative editing to improve the article, it may be easier to make progress on your concerns about the article. Geometry guy 19:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I only believe that encyclopedias should not be making negative assertions on the validity of religions. It is the job of propaganda materials. I am only interested in the issues, and not in having a confrontation. I am just trying to get this issue addressed and will try to focus on the issues as much as I am I am allowed to do.Civilizededucation (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your first sentence, but I'm not yet convinced that the article questions the validity of hinduism, even though it has some weak points. Geometry guy 21:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Geometryguy. Regards. I think I will leave the links. This should explain that complicated language and the use of alternate terms like "religious tradition", "tradition", "belief",...etc. is a way of insinuating that "Hinduism is not a religion / less than a religion." And this should explain that there is no difference between recognition and validity. It will take some time to go through the links minutely. But I think there is no shorter way. It's a two step implied POV. The first step is just a cover. The real implied POV is that "Hinduism has no validity." The second step is a necessary followup of the first. So there is no difference between the two steps.Civilizededucation (talk) 04:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

My impression of the issue is that Hinduism is more than a religion, not less. Geometry guy 19:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply on article talk page

Hi Gg, reply to your recent post here. Also note [1]. Cheers, Jayen466 18:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I replied there. Good luck with the other thing. Geometry guy 19:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I am very impressed by progress so far. It is quite a wall to break through. Keep up the good work. Geometry guy 22:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't actually notice above that you quoted me. You might like to know, in case you didn't find it already, that my interaction with the article, and poor impression of it, go back to this GAR nearly 2 years ago. Geometry guy 20:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a look at that. Jayen466 00:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

On another matter: [2] You were more critical of my edits at the time, so do let me know if you think I was out of line. Jayen466 09:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well said indeed. Jayen466 22:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Canon EOS 100/1‎

Thanks for your comments. You've given me the direction I was needing.--ML5 (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

All part of the GAR service! If you agree, I will close the GAR this weekend. Geometry guy 21:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, wait until the weekend. You never know, somebody else might actually read the article and the detail of its nomination, instead of looking for scalps to display. Ta.

Yes, I want to give a chance for further comments without prolonging the GAR unnecessarily. Geometry guy 21:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that no further comments were forthcoming. I've closed the GAR. I hope you'll be able to renominate soon. Geometry guy 21:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A possibility

Don't know if you're interested in adoption, but User:Negi(afk) is a new maths editor who is looking for an adopter, and I know you'd be a capable guide for him. See the history at Talk:Group (mathematics) (though you probably already have that on your watchlist). Just an idea. Mike Christie (talk)

Thanks for the heads up Mike - always a pleasure to hear from you. I'm certainly happy to help out. Geometry guy 21:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report

Do you know why the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report no longer seems to be updating? Seems like it was a useful report on the GAN status. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree and am doing what I can to encourage a much valued volunteer. See User talk:Dvandersluis#StatisticianBot. Geometry guy 21:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Bubble tea!

-download | sign! has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the bubbliness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Erm, thanks, but it doesn't mean so much to me without any idea what brought you to my user talk page. "WikiLove" should be based on a genuine interest in another editors contributions. If we had some disagreement in the past, you can be sure I've long forgotten it. If not, then simply thanks again, I'll enjoy the tea. Geometry guy 21:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Where to discuss?

Where would be a reasonably neutral place to discuss the broader context of this issue? The standard locations are long-since poisoned. Gimmetrow 01:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, I do so hope you are willing to accommodate GA on this issue. I have been very distressed over it, as not having the reviews transcluded is a major loss. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, the transclusion issue itself is not a big deal - the big deal is how this whole thing was handled. Keep in mind that as GA has grown in scale, I've been dealing with the growing number of error cases that the editors create, with seemingly no way to get editors to follow the rules. The 50+ GAs not listed on WP:GA complicate matters further, and my posts on the topic got archived without being addressed. So I was already frustrated that the job is becoming more than proportionally difficult. Then I was busy for a few days, and I came back to find that people are discussing blocking over the transclusion issue, which seemed absurd. Gimmetrow 02:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, if there is any way I can help tracking down the 50+ GAs not listed, or any other way I can help you, please let me know. I am so hopeful that GA will continue the way it has been, and regret any misunderstanding there was regarding your role. If I can follow up the editors that don't follow the rules, let me know how to idendify them and I will do so. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles/Archive_12#Unlisted for an older list. Most of those are still a problem. Some will take work to figure out (look at edit history of Talk:Edward the Martyr). As an extra irony, the articles that Rschen complained about are still not listed on WP:GA. Gimmetrow 02:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, thanks for commenting here. So far this thread has been considerably more civil than discussion elsewhere and I'm grateful for that too. WT:WGA may be an alternative venue, but I'm happy to continue to host discussion here. The 50+ unlisted GAs are partly my fault for a careless edit to the instructions, as I've noted elsewhere. Ultimately I believe we will have to move to a system where the lists of GAs (and GANs) are automatically generated. I am ready to discuss the issues further this evening UTC. Geometry guy 10:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I went through the list in Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles/Archive_12#Unlisted and they are all listed now. I am willing to help in any way I can. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mattisse, you have been very helpful. I'm sorry that some of the more unfortunate developments caused distress. I am always interested in ways of making the GA infrastructure more robust to support the efforts of its many dedicated reviewers. I would like it to be easy for reviewers to handle the processes, and difficult for them to make technical mistakes. I hope discussion will continue with such aims in mind. Geometry guy 19:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

A very specific issue here involves bot policy. You may notice there is another issue with a bot up on ANI. This particular bot edits mainspace in fully-automatic mode and had about 280 edits on April 28 alone, and it leaves an actual problem with a 3-5% rate. Compare that to the issue with my bot, which concerned perhaps that many edits in a month, and the issue did not involve an error, but a "matter of taste", and the bot isn't fully-automatic.

A broader issue here is the problem of people who don't contribute much taking shots at the people who do. If one set is viewed as a "prima donna", the other set is a "backseat driver". Likewise, people who claim not to be into politics often tend to be, in fact, rather political. In particular, there was the comment on the ANI thread saying this was an issue for "interested editors", seeming to, by definition, exclude me from that class. Do you agree with that? Gimmetrow 16:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

A comment by me or someone else? My only comment on the ANI thread (apart from a 2 line clarification about StatisticianBot) was

Removing the transclusion after a review is largely a matter of taste and there is no prescription - as long as the review is linked e.g. from ArticleHistory. However, keeping the review transclusion on the talk page after a review maintains high visibility for article editors wishing to improve an article in response to the review. I don't see any benefit for the encyclopedia in automatically removing the review when article editors may wish otherwise. This should be left to individual editors and reviewers, not a bot. Geometry guy 08:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't refer to "interested editors" and didn't exclude you from any set "by definition". I wouldn't be surprised if someone else did, but you would have to be more specific, and there's a good chance I wouldn't agree, since much of the discussion was a pointless mess, as you and others have noted.

I share your view that a matter of taste is not a big deal. I am also of the opinion that the editors actively involved with each particular article/review are the ones whose taste is most relevant. In most cases this will include neither you nor I. If you disagree with this, then you are most welcome to continue discussion of the issue in lieu of reply to my comment at the ANI, or the related comment on your talk page.

I pay almost no attention to ANI (and similar fora). This ANI thread was linked from one of the GA talk pages and I followed it attempting to add moderate comment on the issue. Unfortunately, such comment is often ignored once the attention turns to editors, rather than issues or edits. Geometry guy 19:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the list of GAs, there is a category. This could support the high-level broad divisions, since there is already a topic field. Anything more structured than that would require new infrastructure, and it would be a stretch to expect all those who review GAs to maintain that infrastructure, given how little it gets maintained now. Gimmetrow 22:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree; it is a really challenging technical and sociological problem to come up with a system that provides reviewers with the information they want, while requiring minimal expertise on their part to use the system correctly. This has been on my mind for more than a year and I don't have a brilliant answer. Compromises are needed, but which compromises? As you know, achieving compromise (aka consensus) here is very difficult. Geometry guy 22:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Continual low-intensity Cantor-babble

• I'm getting pretty tired of all this back and forth on Cantor re Judaism. Of course I would very gladly do something to address the issue myself, but as you know, I no longer have access to English-language libraries. I only have access to the Internet. Would you or someone else you know (Carl? ummm...) be willing to access all of the sources listed etc. and take on the task of revamping the "Ancestry" section, addressing each and every statement/point in a non-OR and non-POV manner? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

  I'll take a look in my university's library and see if they have any of it - I recall that there was at least one cited journal article I could access online. Dealing with nonsense discussions about side issues like this doesn't fill me with great enthusiasm, so please accept my apologies if I don't manage to achieve anything. Paul August and Trovatore are clearly watchlisting. Have you asked User:Pmanderson? He may be a controversial editor on some issues, but I seem to recall him being rather effective at straightening out problems with the Cantor article. Geometry guy 19:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

  Good ideas... I'll ask them later today, several hours from now – thanks! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Advice requested

My inclination is to feel that Jon Hol fails GA because it goes into such detail about politics that is "background" for the article's biography and does not remain focused on the subject. The editor says that the detail is necessary, and that there is no more biographical detail about the article's subject anyway. It is an interesting article. What do you think? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response. I'd be inclined to give the article the benefit of the doubt. The content is good, and some context is needed here: English language readers are not likely to be familiar with any of it. I didn't notice a lack of focus or unnecessary detail: apart from the background section, the article keeps returning to Jon Hol's involvement in the issues of the day. This is something that could be examined more closely at the FA level, but the GA standards are meant to be much less exacting.

There may be an opportunity to encourage building the web: none of the sections link to main articles and the background section would really benefit from having at least a "see also". Also, the most significant part of the article is about Rifleringen, which has no article, and Det norske Arbeiderforbund is just a redirect to a section of this article. Geometry guy 20:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have done quite a bit of copy editing on it. And I will try to link it to other articles. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

More advice requested

I initiated a GAR Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1 for Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology. Someone has reverted the GAR. What do you think? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Who gets to determine what a GA is. There are all sorts of admins declaring what the criteria are, admins that I do not normally see entering into GA discussions or reviewing articles. What is the deal? I guess I made the mistake of giving an opinion about an article of an FAC regular. Big mistake. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your question is simple: everyone. WP:WIAGA documents the "GA law", but who interprets it? We all do. The ultimate high court where we try to find consensus is GAR.

You have got yourself into trouble again by being too enthusiastic and too dogmatic. Some of the FAC regulars may have been wrong, but I strongly recommend you don't use bold font, and don't relate article quality issues to personal ones. Alas my advice may have come too late, but I do believe in your good intentions and I do wish you well. Geometry guy 22:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your words of support. I am afraid I have nothing to discuss in the face of what is going on, and I cannot see how you can help. The Arbitration will just have to happen, and if I am banned, then so be it. Meanwhile, I will not be contributing to the encyclopedia, including reviewing and copy editing GA articles, until this Arbitration is resolved. Thank you for your thoughts. Unfortunately cries for help went unheeded. I believe it is too late for me now. So this is probably a good bye post. Thank you again, as I believe you are a good spirit, one of the few. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am contacting you because you have contributed or expressed interest in the GA sweeps process. Last month, only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process with 163 articles reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

All exempt articles that have reached FA status have now been moved to a separate section at the end of the running total page. I went through all of the members' running totals and updated the results to reflect the move. As a result your reviewed article total may have decreased a bit. After removing duplicate articles and these FAs, the running total leaves us at ~1,400 out of 2,808 articles reviewed.

If you currently have any articles on hold or at GAR, please consider concluding those reviews and updating your results. I'm hoping that this new list and increased efforts can help us to increase the number of reviews. We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you know of anybody that can assist please direct them to the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, will get an award when they reach that mark. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 08:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Do you have any further ideas on this can of worms? E.g. should we ask at WT:GAN and / or WT:GAR for more input? --Philcha (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A note at WT:GAN would probably be a good idea. Geometry guy 19:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Sorry for not acknowledging more promptly. --Philcha (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [3]. 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 [4].

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 [5], 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)

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)

Really?

[6] = 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)

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)

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)

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)