User talk:Geometry guy/Archive 24

WP:Good article reassessment/Nokian Tyres/1

What is "compelling prose". I seek knowledge not argument. Is compelling when you convince a criminal to stop crime? So the tyre article would convince people to buy Nokian tyres? I don't think that is what you meant. I don't want to sell tyres to anyone. I don't even use Nokian tyres.

By compelling, do you mean interesting? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It means engaging and easy to read - indeed a pleasure to read. It is not about selling tyres! At the moment the article seems repetitive and detailed, and lacks flow. Find a featured article on a similar topic and compare the writing style. Geometry guy 18:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There is one FA about a popular politician that is not very well written, poor flow and style. However, I think the politician's supporters have made it a FA because they think that a star means that the politician is good. The star should mean the article is good, whether the article is about a saint or a criminal. But thanks for the idea about comparing articles. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea why you consider an article on a "popular politician" to be similar to one on a manufacturing company. For the latter, try articles like BAE Systems. Geometry guy 23:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-harm

Hi, first I'd like to wish you a happy New Year and thank you for your continued involvment in the GAR process, it is appreciated. Secondly I would like to ask for your comment on the Self-harm GAR page as I am a little frustrated now and I require someone to look at the bigger picture and see what actually needs to be done to make the article GA and which bits should be on the future wish list and dealt with on the article talk page instead of the GAR page. Many thanks. Jdrewitt (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There seems to have been a misunderstanding, in which Doc James has considered himself to be still the primary reviewer, whereas in fact this is a community GAR, with no such reviewer. I have reverted. My apologies if I have deleted any significant comments. I think a fresh restart is the best way forward. Geometry guy 22:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and nothing significant got deleted. A fresh restart sounds good. I really feel the references on the article are good and I have put a lot of effort into them which is why I got a bit upset by feeling a little un appreciated. Thanks again. Jdrewitt (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that I though it was an individual reassessment by mistake. Wondering how "No action" is appropriate however? There continues to be issues of references, prose, and insufficient detail regarding causes even though it has made substantial improvements over the last two weeks.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It allows for a fresh community GAR. There's too much baggage in the current one (in my view). If you disagree, then please try to restore constructive interactions with fellow editors in the current review. An apology there would be a good way to start. Geometry guy 23:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

An apology for what? The mistaken close?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You may prefer the restart option. The apology would be for mistaking the GAR for an individual one and acting accordingly (including the close in particular). Up to you anyway. Geometry guy 23:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Have done. Do you have any comments about the article?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Not today. Geometry guy 23:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay can we just leave it open until others comment?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nominations that have lasted a long time

Hi Geometry guy, what should be done when GAN reviews are old and nothing seems to be happening. e.g. Talk:Unit 101/GA1 or GANs that appear deserted with no recent activity? There are some that go back to last fall. (I have sent reminder notes to a few nominators who have not responded to their article reviews.) Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no general recipe: ping the reviewer, or (later, if no response) close as "not listed" and start a new GAN review. You can get good advice at WT:GAN. Geometry guy 23:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Thanks

No problem! Let me know if you see any other similar things cropping up (nasty-looking GARs, or GARs without much detail) and I'll do what I can to intercede. If you feel like practical thanks in the same sort of area, I have four unreviewed GANs up :). Ironholds (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Technical question

Hi -- I know you're an expert on the use of bots and templates and so forth, so I was wondering if you had any ideas about a way to improve the shared resources page. It seems to be low traffic, and I can see why -- it would be very difficult and time consuming for someone to insert their own list of reference works into a page like this, and almost as hard for a content writer to use the page. I created my own list, which I am adding to periodically; this is much easier for me to maintain but less useful for others unless they happen to know of it. What would be nice is a way to add templates or category tags to individual reference library pages such as mine and to have a bot assemble the results into a catalogue of some kind. For article writers, that bot's catalog page would be a first stop on the way to finding sources. Any thoughts on a way to make this happen? Mike Christie (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not clear how best to organize all this information. One interpretation of your question would be to set up a page organized by subject area and in each section there would be a list of pages (like your own) where sources related to that subject area can be found. It wouldn't be so hard to do that manually. I could automate it using templates and categories: on each page of sources (like your own) editors would add a template indicating which subject areas they have sources for; this would put such pages into categories, and then a category listing bot would compile the list. I'm not sure whether that is much easier than the manual approach, but it could be done without a bot request. Beyond that, we would need to have a clearer idea what "a catalogue of some kind" would look like. Geometry guy 20:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that could work. I'll think about it and might post a suggestion for a local resource page at one of the projects for which I have relevant sources. That is, there could be a subpage of the sf project that contained a list of links to users' reference library pages. That would mean I should break up my page into project-specific pages, which is easy to do. I would suggest that other project members do something similar, and we'd see if the results were useful. I suspect a reasonably narrow scope and a moderately active membership are prerequisites for success (as they are for so many things here); without the narrow scope a million books could be listed. "Science fiction" might be narrow enough; "history" isn't, but "Anglo-Saxon history" might be. Thanks for the input -- I'll let you know what happens, if anything. Mike Christie (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It isn't strictly necessary to break up pages in a project-specific way if categories are used, but I leave it to you to refine the idea for now. Geometry guy 23:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

reversion

You unstruck the comments you told me to strike. Why? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I only advised you to strike one comment. That remains struck. Your other contributions are much appreciated: see here for an example. Unfortunately, because you reacted in haste, without consultation, you are currently banned from the page. I hope that before these 6 months are over you will have learned to take your time. Geometry guy 00:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I am currently banned from the page? Wow, that will teach me not to contribute! Lesson learned. Will not contribute substantively to an article. Glad you let me know, as I did not realize that I was banned from the page. Wikipedia is serious. I am amazed that I am banned from a page to which both you and RegentsPark said I had made substantial positive contributions. I guess that is the logic of Wikipedia. Certainly provides an incentive to me to positively contribute! Can't get over that. Banned from the page! Wow, and Wow! And you suggested that I wait a day or so to contribute to a page from which I am banned. Wow! Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wake up Mattisse. Read your own talk page. I banned you there. Now start learning to read and think before you react. Thanks, Geometry guy 01:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't see it. I did a "find" on "banned" on my talk page and came up with nothing. Perhaps you could point out your statement more clearly. It is best to be clear in such communications. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You are still better at typing than reading: [1] Geometry guy 01:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This is rather distressing. Geometry Guy's ban was so plain that even I saw it, and this subsequent wriggling is uncomely. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Geometry guy 01:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Lesson learned. I will make no further contributions to the article. Banning me now ensures that. I will wait the 36 hours to delete my comments. Thank you for all you suggestions. I will be very careful not to contribute anything substantive to articles in the future. You have made it very clear that I will get "in trouble" for doing so. And I am being banned from the article, why? I attempted to strike the comments, but you reverted my strike.

(I have no wish to contribute to the article further, although my contributions thus far have been major. Such is Wikipedia.) Thank you Malleus for continuing to be so interested in everything concerning me. I am (almost) flattered. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Addendum. How is it "wriggling"? Why do you allow such unflattering characterizations on your talk page, and even support them? I take that as an insult and personal attack. I am only waiting to strike my comments from the article talk page. I have no intention of contributing again. Is this an effort to put any comments I make in an unflattering light. Please explain. I have not attempted and will not attempt to contribute to the article ever again. I did not know about the ban because I did not attempt to contribute. All I want to do is strike my comments. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a ban, nothing more, nothing less. You do not have to edit any article to see this, only to read your own talk page. Geometry guy 01:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I get lost in verbiage. Too much commenting. I have learned to disregard most of it. As I said, I have no intention of ever editing the article again. I guess that is why your ban did not register as meaningful. I will wait until the ban has ended to revert your unstriking of my comments. It certainly makes contributions unrewarding, and I will take that to heart. Sorry that I sought to improve the article. Big mistake! (I notice that my additions are being retained and are not destructive, but I will add no more.) Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 02:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"Sorry" is a start, but not yet sorry for the right reasons. The rest I will take to your talk page. Geometry guy 10:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thread archived as a courtesy

Thread archived. Please do not modify. Geometry guy 18:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In my arbitration the Ownership culture was mentioned as a distructive behavior for Wikipedia. But in this case, ownership or "lead editor" status was being assumed by others, e.g. [2] [3] So the sin is for me to accept it, since others are assuming it? Me being banned assures it. Wait until it is a FA as suggested. We will see who it "belongs" to. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC) <ec> (amended to clarify to match discussion in rest of thread, as SandyGeorgia just added quote below to her statement [4] without noting her amendment) Plus she added this [5] without noting amendment. When comments are changed, this should be noted. —mattisse (Talk) 18:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC) All right, that's enough. I have intentionally stayed out of this, and yet here you are bringing me in ("ownership was being assumed by others ... ").[6][7] That should be noted as a sample of how you escalate issues. Articlestats show that Moni3 is the lead editor there, plain and simple, no other assumptions. May I suggest that the mentors are heading into a danger zone here? Discussions are spread across multiple pages, and all related threads should be moved to and consolidated to the Monitoring page, where you can all deal with this in one place? That is its intended purpose, and in spite of other editors staying out, this does not appear to be de-escalating, so using the Monitoring page might keep everything in one place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC) I agree that Moni3 is the "lead editor" or has ownership, however you want to phrase it. And undoubtedly, as you is suggested, it will be her FA. It is Geometry guy who says she is not. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Addendum. The discussions are on my talk page and here. That is not "spread across multiple pages". Please to not inflame the situation. The arbitrators stressed that I should not be "baited". You appear to be doing that here. Because I used a diff of yours to imply ownership or "lead editor", which you agree is the case, is not a reason for you to enter this thread. But thank you for confirming my views on the "lead editor" bit. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Stop the escalation. You brought in the thread on Moni3's page, and now you're accusing me of baiting because I got involved in developing a guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC) (post-ec addition) Further, Moni has taken a lead in establishing a guideline for similar articles, and I joined in that completely unrelated issue, so bringing me in to this is unhelpful and unnecessary provocation. And please do not put words in my mouth:[8] I have never made any mention of any potential FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Thank you again for confirming my point of view regarding the "lead" editor bit. Now I think this can be dropped, as the disagreement over whether there is a "lead editor" or not is between me and Geometry guy. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Try to read what I wrote: Moni has taken a lead in establishing a guideline for similar articles, ..."; that has been my area of involvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC) I think Moni3's response to SandyGeorgia's comment [9] shows that she read the meaning of comment the same way I did. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Back to the point at hand: there are now five threads involving three user talk pages, in addition to the original article talk issue. I suggest the advisors/mentors move all of those to the Monitoring page to keep it all in one place, contain discussion, and prevent escalation. I should be able to comment on Moni's talk page on an unrelated guideline issue without seeing it spread to another user talk page I watch. That is the purpose of the Monitoring page; please use it so the rest of us can stay out of this, and avoid having this spill over into Moni's unrelated attempts to develop a guideline. End of my involvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Citing supportive diffs from a talk page does not mean that the talk page is "involved". This discussion is between me and Geometry guy. I merely gave some diffs from a talk page to support my point to him. There is no reason for SandyGeorgia to have involved herself in this, although I thank her for supporting my point. However, she is not part of this discussion and may feel free to disengage. This discussion is taking place on two talk pages only. Please do not spread it further. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Alert page

G guy, since I was the first guinea pig, I originally did it wrong: [10] Can the pre-load link be added directly to that section? I missed it above, and went straight to that section, so had to re-submit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

ummmmm ... :) It gets better :) This is the sort of confusion the Request for clarification was supposed to fix. I have just discovered that, in spite of Motion 9, there is no Monitoring page, which makes my Alert wording somewhat moot. Um, what happened? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Both the monitoring page and the alerts page were moved into arbitration space: WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring and WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts. This was a bad idea, in view of the special way pages in this area are handled, and I have already asked the clerks to look into it. Anyway, your alert has been received. I will see if anything can be done with the preload. Geometry guy 19:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

ugh, OK, I made a mess of everything, but it's good for guinea pig purposes, to get the kinks out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Understandable and helpful. Will continue this on the alerts talk page. Geometry guy 19:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I found the faulty redirect and listed it there for you ... will continue there. Ugh :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested responses

I have responded as best I can on the monitoring page and on my talk page to your rather confusing questions. I apologize for my poor eyesight. Wikipedia does not handle handicaps well! I did not understand your questions but tried to answer them as best I can. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Geometry guy 20:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Feedback after a day has passed

G guy, no hurry, but I've given a lot of thought to whether the diff yesterday, accusing me of "distructive" behavior [11] and by extension of the negative commentary and continued accusations (e.g.; [12] and others) even after I reached out in understanding of the frustration over alleged "ownership" issues on the talk page of Alerts,[13] [14] [15] was in fact, an example of me rising unnecessarily to baiting. I'd like your opinion if/when you find time, no hurry. I'd like to be able to get involved in the development of a guideline without accusations and escalation based on a completely inaccurate reading of what I wrote or meant, but perhaps I reacted too quickly, and should have left it for you to sort before I responded. I'm also hoping you can encourage Mattisse to refrain from significantly altering commentary well after others have already responded. For example, this misrepresentation and truncation of my post to Moni3's talk, leaving off the key parts of the sentence, was added well into the discussion, without a new timestamp. This is the diff that caused me to view the entire incident in the context of "baiting". On a separate matter, it would be helpful if Mattisse would understand that there is no assumption of bad faith or personalization of issues in this question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, thanks for commenting here and asking for feedback, which I will try to provide with the straightforward honesty that an editor I greatly respect deserves. I will not address concerns about Mattisse here (for instance, I have already advised her not to edit her posts after others reply) as it would be unhelpful if she started adding to this thread. My comments will inevitably refer to her, however. For example, in your last two diffs, you are quite right that your question involved no assumption of bad faith or personalization of issues, but also Mattisse's response involved no accusation of bad faith or personalization; nevertheless, in the heat of the moment, such posts may generate unhelpful perceptions.

Concerning "baiting", your question implies that you felt Mattisse was baiting you (e.g., by this, which diffed one edit by you, and one by Ceranthor). The edit by Mattisse to her user page suggests that she also felt that she was being baited, and she said so explicitly. I see no evidence of any baiting on either side here, just misunderstandings and miscommunications, compounded by frustration.

However, even if I am wrong (I'm not a mind reader), this is one area where the standard practice of assuming good faith is a win-win situation. Here I mean actually assuming good faith, not wikilawyering over the guideline. Anytime you think someone may be baiting you, assume they aren't: if you are right, you avoid escalation; if you are wrong, you foil their plan by not taking the bait :-)

Finally, the feedback you asked for.

• The best thing you did here, in my view, was raise the alert on the Alerts page. This could have been done sooner, for instance instead of replying to Mattisse's ownership post on this page. But hindsight is 20-20. It hadn't occurred to me to suggest this at the time, as advisors were already aware of the situation, so I didn't see the point of an alert: however, alerts not only raise issues, but another editor's perspectives and concerns. This is something I will bear in mind in the future.
• My honest opinion is that you do sometimes edit too quickly, or form an opinion too early (if I may joke, any post beginning "Oh my" causes my eyebrows to raise). I can understand this, as you do so many things on Wikipedia, and it is impossible to keep track of every edit related to your interests. I don't think you should have replied to Mattisse's ownership post here, but I also do not think she should have posted it. I can and do deal with stuff on my talk page very easily, but only when I am logged in: in my absense I imagine even the edit conflicts raised tensions. I encourage all editors to spend time reading the comments of others and the backhistory before adding comments themselves. Concerning this particular issue, an important component was that Mattisse had already contributed a lot of good work to the article.
• In matters of urgency, advisors can issue a swift block or ban, but otherwise we need time and space to work. You have seen that Mattisse can get pretty upset with her advisors, but in the long run, we have her trust and can help her interact more productively with the community. When she interacts with editors she does not trust, the situation can deteriorate very rapidly.

I hope you still feel (as you should) completely free to contribute to guidelines, and encourage editors like Moni3 in the excellent work they do for the encyclopedia. If Mattisse misunderstands or misrepresents good intentions, her advisors are available to resolve and clarify matters for her. Geometry guy 20:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for my delay in responding and thank you ! My Wiki time in the coming weeks will be limited, and I must use it to keep up with FAC and FAR. (Now I'll have to watch starting my posts with "ah, has", "oh mys" and "wells"!) I'm glad to see that this incident helped get the kinks are out of the various pages and that the Alerts page works as intended now, sorry to see that you are still having to carry most of the load of making the Plan work, and if I'm again brought into a discussion that I have nothing to do with, I'll use the Alerts page, and hopefully not have to trouble you. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding and taking on board my comments. No apology is necessary for the delay. I frequently do not edit for several days. Geometry guy 20:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for making those comments above. I believe they are accurate. On a similar note, there is a thread at talk:Featured article canditates - Pleeeeeease I would like to add the following to it:

Plus willing editors who are altruistic and primarily copy edit and review the articles of others, not for self credit, get chased away. That might be something to examine, why that happens. Is FAC only for editors who want to promote their own work?

(I would like to add this because, except for dyk, I get no credit for the work I do. I am one of the few editors that is not looking to collect article trinkets. Yet taking an objective position in copy editing and reviewing is not good and is not rewarded, so of course I will not ever copy edit or review an article for FAC again. This has affected my willingness to review GAN, as they frequently go on to FAC. Is this really for the good of wikipedia? Should only invested editors review and copy edit?) Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 02:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback, but I have other views about what was detrimental to the comaraderie and productive working environment that existed at FAC earlier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow! That response is two minutes after I posted! (See Geometry guy's remarks above.) I agree that you have created a wonderful atmosphere at FAC, and things are definitely better than when I used to contribute freely in 2007 and 2008. You are right. FAC is definitely better now. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 03:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

Where is the page where I am supposed to be able to discuss issues with my mentors freely? Further, what questions did I fail to answer? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring. Geometry guy 23:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have made a request on that page. —mattisse (Talk) 23:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No you haven't. You have made a wish. But this is already a start. Geometry guy 23:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There is so much POV and misunderstanding in the article. I would like to comment on the obvious errors and support those who see the POV. Before I was banned, I was able to deflect some of it by adding sources to balance it that remain in the article even now. But the POV is beginning to overpower it again. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So, what is required on my part to be able to comment? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

One two page article from the New York Times briefly mentioned that three women attended church in what seemed to be their best clothes. This was turned into "Impromptu gatherings were held outside churches that had collapsed with a few attendees appearing in their best clothes." This makes no sense. When people are starving and without water, still trying to dig survivors out from the ruins, three women have access to their best cloths? Actual quote from newspaper: "Three older women arrived there around 9 a.m. looking for a service, wearing dresses that were remarkably clean and wrinkle-free." Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You remain banned from the article and its talk page. When you contributed well to the article, you contributed many improvements; now you cannot do so. Reflect and learn: you may then be able to contribute again. Geometry guy 00:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

:OK. You are the boss. I really barely contribute to Wikipedia anymore anyway, since I have lost interest in most areas, or cannot contribute such as FAC, FAR, DYK, GAN etc. So this just makes sure I do not. I will be another one of those editors that fade away. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the above statement, made in frustration, and have struck it out. The condition of Wikipedia is not your fault. I am sorry for making the statement. Also, I have refactored my talk page to try to make our posts readable. Hope you do not mind and that I did not break a rule in doing so. I just could not make heads or tails of the text the way it was. Again, I apologize and thank you for your help. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 19:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sincere apologies like this are always a good thing in my book, and always much appreciated. Thank you. Concerning your refactoring, your talk page is one place where you have considerable editorial freedom, and that is one reason why I sometimes discuss matters with you there, rather than here. I found your refactoring helpful as it indicated to me the kind of format that you find easier to read. Geometry guy 20:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Explain what you meant by removing material from Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)

You moved the discussion for this GA to an archive, on January 16, 2010, at 22:56 and substituted an empty page, giving this reason "(Archive to allow for a fresh GAN review)".

Please explain. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Paparazzi_(Lady_Gaga_song)/1. Geometry guy 08:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I am not familiar with the GA process. Nor was I notified of the discussion you cited, so I had no opportunity to respond.

At the outset, User:Legolas2186 labeled my two minor edits removing external links as vandalism.[16] From that point, rather than accepting criticism, he simply treated any additional suggestions as "bias" and "vandalism". I pointed out that the article is incomplete, but also too detailed to be readable to the majority of readers. User:Legolas2186 then complained that I was breaching Wikiquette,[17] putting inflammatory language in my mouth that I had not used.

I'm not sure how I could have approached this more gently. Suggestions are met with "It looks like all the other articles". And that's right, this group is churning out article after article that is unlikely to be read in its entirety. Nor does the group seem to have a command of the subject, i.e., there's no evidence of understanding of instrumentation, sound engineering, or video production. The articles would not meet professional or academic standards anywhere I've worked. Isn't there any way to temper this headlong rush creating Wiki articles that are little more than summaries of marketing publicity? Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I am quite sympathetic to your concerns. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and if people want to create articles on topics such as television episodes and pop songs, they can do so, as long as the topic meets the notability guidelines. Such editors are predominantly fans, rather than subject experts. This will happen with or without GA. However, Wikipedia does have certain minimum standards that articles are supposed to meet (e.g., verifiability and neutral point of view). Most articles on Wikipedia do not meet these standards. GA is one process which supports and encourages these standards. The best way I know to use GA for the betterment of the encyclopedia is always to focus on the article content and the GA criteria.

One feature of the GA process, and many regard this as a flaw, is that many GAs do not actually meet the GA criteria, because an article is only as good as the most recent review. However, GAs are considerably better, on average, than most Wikipedia articles, and they can be reassessed at any time, by any editor. This also means that "Other stuff like this exists" arguments are fundamentally flawed. It is up to every editor and reviewer contributing to the GA process to assess the article content against the GA criteria. If the article does not pass muster, it should be fixed, or not listed as a GA. In the latter case, clear and specific explanations will help editors improve the article in the future.

I do not know if this answers your concern, but it is the best I can offer at the moment. Geometry guy 20:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

#switch/#if help

Would you mind coming over here and helping me with some intricate #switch/#if stuff for a template? I'm still learning how all of it works, and these bits are still somewhat confusing to me. I appreciate your time. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this is resolved as you deleted the page. If I can still be of help, let me know. Geometry guy 20:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request

• Could you box up the extra comment on the "alerts" talk page as "resolved"? My understanding was that this whole "alerts" process was to prevent that kind of unnecessary commenting. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • All of this is a way for mentors to provide you with considered advice. That may require discussion, so a little patience may be necessary sometimes. Geometry guy 00:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Re talkback template. Here is an example of the dislike: I absolutely despise talkpage templates. Please do not use them on my page, if you really want to keep my goodwill. If you do use one, by all the gods, sign it so it archives and put it in its own section!. —mattisse (Talk) 02:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Scientology in Germany

Hi Geometry guy; you and Mattisse will remember this one ;). Scientology in Germany is currently a GA, and I've just submitted if for a peer review to see how much more work there is to be done before it might be worth nominating for FA. If you and/or Mattisse could find the time to cast your eye over it and give me some feedback on its present state, I'd appreciate it very much. Thanks, --JN466 22:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I will take a look if I get time: it would be a great achievement to bring an article on a contentious topic like this to FA status. Geometry guy 19:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

February GA Sweeps update

Progress as of January 2010

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you have to be sick of seeing these updates (as well as Sweeps itself) by now, so please do consider reviewing a few articles if you haven't reviewed in a while. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps 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) 02:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Pure genius?

Hee, hee thanks, I wondered if anyone had got that one. And what's more I'm a Mancunian myself so it's obviously true :) Richerman (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

May be unhelpful ...

It may be unhelpful, but it's the truth, and Mattisse needs to be reined in. I have had just about enough of her lies. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You still have the capability to focus on your own integrity. Please do so, and do not let wayward editors distract you. Geometry guy 00:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I see. So Mattisse's crusade is perfectly acceptable to you then? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. Geometry guy 00:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If you look back you wil see that this is a recurring pattern of behaviour; I encouraged Mattisse after an FAC episode she found discouraging towards GAN. After a few monthe I became a disrespected pariah in her eyes. You're going the same way, as are all of the other of her "advisors" for whom she's now lost all respect. Time to wake up? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of many patterns concerning the behaviour of several editors on this site, including Mattisse. I have no intention to overreact or oversimplify in any case. Geometry guy 00:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've said all that I intend to for now about Mattisse. Let others decide whether she's an inveterate liar or not; I've made my mind up. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I would be blocked for making such a comment. That is one of the many things wrong with my plan. It leaves me helpless against such comments that are tolerated in other editors. And I have never made such a statement that is an obvious [[WP:NPA|personal attack. Thus the futility of My Plan. It makes me a victim of this sort of thing. There is a huge hypocrisy at play here. I am supposed to emulate some hypothetical saint that doesn't exist. I am supposed to invent the mold. —mattisse (Talk) 01:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I must confess that when I see rolling conflicts like this, I feel completely at sea or at a loss, like a Martian trying to understand human behavior. It's like this: Malleus + Mattisse = conflict. The answer is as simple as falling off a log: forget that the other person exists. Put that person out of mind; don't respond to him/her, and most especially of all, never never be the initiator of any interaction. I have never had a problem forgetting that someone exists. Even in the worst case scenario, I can pretend to forget that I have ever encountered the person before. I highly suggest it, if it is not too late. • Ling.Nut 02:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I never remove posts.

The only time I have is yesterday and today as I tried to retire. But I can't retire when I am being threatened with a block. So I thank you for removing the unpleasant post. Usually I just try to ignore it, as I did the one nine days ago from the same poster. I find his word aggressive and intimidating and I am too afraid to remove his posts. —mattisse (Talk) 00:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In which case, if you wish to continue here, you must promise always to contact an advisor whenever you feel the need to interact with such an editor, or he/she interacts with you. Geometry guy 00:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

He has posted on my page again. Can you get him to stop? Please? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I will look into it. Geometry guy 00:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I ask your permission to respond to him on my talk page. —mattisse (Talk) 00:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are still following your plan, you can only respond within its terms. I can only advise if your proposed response is compatible with your plan. In the meanwhile, Jayen and I have both proposed alternative ways forward. You will have to use your own judgment as to how to proceed, but you can seek advice at any time. My advice for the moment would be, as always, not to do anything in a rush. Geometry guy 00:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am not clear what your advice is. Is it to remove the posts? It has been a practice of mine never to do so, as I am afraid of instigating retaliation if I do so.
Wikipedia Review is not an option for me, as I find it boring, pointless navel gazing. I have no wish to opine in that context. Besides, Malleus would make mincemeat of me there also. I will not edit at all, except to respond to these threats against me, until the problem of My Plan is cleared up. It certainly is a failure now. My provisions are not being followed so I am not at all confident I can continue at Wikipedia until this is cleared up. I was under the impression that I "owned" the plan, as arbcom had said, so to find out that is not true and that I am powerless is disheartening. I will not edit, except these talk page responses, until that is cleared up. I am beginning to think that I am not suited for Wikipedia. My extraordinarily productive days are behind me. I never again will edit with joy, now that I have seen the seamier side of Wikipedia. It is best that I stop. Regards, Mattisse

GA Sweeps Completed!

Thanks to everyone's amazing efforts in February, we have reviewed all of the articles and are now finished with Sweeps! There are still about 30 articles currently on hold, and once those reviews are completed, I will send you a final message about Sweeps process stats including the total number of articles that were passed and failed. If you have one of these open reviews, be sure to update your count when the review is completed so I can compile the stats. You can except to receive your award for reviewing within the next week or two. Although the majority of the editors did not start Sweeps at the beginning in August 2007 (myself included), over 50 editors have all come together to complete a monumental task and improve many articles in the process. I commend you for sticking with this often challenging task and strengthening the integrity of the GA WikiProject as well as the GAs themselves. I invite you to take a break from reviewing (don't want you to burn out!) and then consider returning/starting to review GANs and/or contribute to GAR reviews. With your assistance, we can help bring the backlog down to a manageable level and help inspire more editors to improve articles to higher classes and consider reviewing themselves. Again, thank you for putting up with difficult reviews, unhappy editors, numerous spam messages from me, and taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Message for you, sir

*Thwack* Just wanted to make sure you saw this. --Moni3 (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I already replied this morning on the reviewer's talk page and have amplified my response just now. This is off-topic on the review page, which is concerned with... whether the article meets the GA criteria or not! Geometry guy 19:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Copied from alerts page

If anyone wants me to hold my tongue now, they may as well just block me now (always wanted a block log), because I have absolutely no intention of sitting by again while apologists and enablers fall for excuses and "poor me, I was stressed", that have cost productive reviewers and editors enormous amounts of time over the last few years, and led to the destruction of morale at FAC and among FA writers and reviewers. Is there no shame?. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, you are welcome to discuss this here if you wish. No one is asking you to hold your tongue, but the Alerts thread is about sorting out present problems; discussion about what went wrong in the past will get in the way of that. Concerning the future, no one is currently arguing that Mattisse be allowed to return to Wikipedia.

In particular, I already expressed my view a week ago that the indefinite block should become a permanent ban. I note that Mattisse is now presenting her case on her talk page. Her partial confessions thus far only serve to confirm my view. Geometry guy 19:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

G guy, you just can predict that her enablers are going to fall for it again, and even if she isn't let back, she will continue to sock and plague FAC. She destroyed FAC. She destroyed morale among FA writers and reviewers. But she isn't what really has me steamed: it's seeing ArbCom do the same thing to Karanacs. When will the word of respected, experienced, productive editors mean as much as a core group of enablers and supporters ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom have a difficult job to demonstrate impartiality to a very broad demographic over an imperfect communication medium. I saw that they declined the RCC case as premature; it is likely to mature anyway, as it has been an ongoing problem and the editors involved seem unlikely to change their spots.

Still I would be appalled if anyone, especially ArbCom, consider that Karanacs did anything wrong in raising the issue. She is one of Wikipedia's finest editors. I don't keep a very large watchlist, so I'd be grateful if you link me to the issue. During the Mattisse Clarification, there was a moment when one or two arbitrators wanted to include Moni3 in the scope. I gently but firmly opposed such a move right on this talk page. When the messenger clearly has good intentions, they most certainly should not come under fire. Geometry guy 20:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Link you to it? NancyHeise has been going on for years, all over the place. The similarities in the two cases are that we had RFC/Us that clearly demonstrated the disruption, yet ArbCom chose to go with a core group of enablers and supporters. The bottom line is that Karanacs will be put through the same misery I was put through. And that's all I see right now. And we can't blame all of ArbCom, because it's pretty clear that just a few arbs caused the stall in the Mattisse case (if I have any choice words, it's for Vassyana). What motivation is there for experienced, respected, productive long-time editors to engage in dispute resolution if the arbs are so easily swayed by a chorus of supporters and enablers? *ALL* of us "in the trenches" knew all of this about Mattisse, long ago. But no one listened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs isn't in bother surely is she? Isn't the RCC ArbCom thing over now? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The case was rejected, and the page continues to be mired in POV and edit wars, with the same cast of characters (except for the complication of the arrival of Pmanderson). So, the arbs put off a conflict until it escalates to something awful, wasting the time of productive editors. How many "advisers" wasted how much time on something we all knew the outcome would be years ago? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

For you

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		The name says it all—again and again you've proved yourself to be a tower of integrity, a calm voice of reason, and a sane and insightful contributor whether dealing with articles or editors. With my deepest respect, EyeSerenetalk 22:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey stranger :) I hope you don't mind me dropping this here. I'm aware you have no userpage and don't (afaik) keep a record of these things, but although our editing may have taken different directions over the last months, I've regularly lurked on your talkpage and been consistently impressed with you being consistently impressive; often not in the easiest of circumstances. You truly are an exemplary Wikipedian. Hoping our editing paths meet again soon, EyeSerene^talk 22:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for this! All personal awards I receive are appreciated, especially from excellent editors like yourself, and are kept in my talk archives. I do occasionally peruse the archives to recall the good memories and kindness of so many editors here. Thanks again, Geometry guy 08:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. EyeSerene^talk 10:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks also for your wise and measured words at ANI. Geometry guy 22:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Dispatch

Remember the good ole days :) Have you reviewed Wikipedia:FCDW/GASweeps? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

G guy, other events sidetracked me from completing the work started long ago at User:SandyGeorgia/GA class medicine articles. Sweeps are over, many of the medical GAs use primary sources, and it's unreasonable to assume GA reviewers know how to check for that. Where should I post to help GA reviewers learn how to click on PMIDs to determine if the article is a review or a primary source? Would that be at GAN or GA talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments for GA reviewers are best placed at WT:GAN. Geometry guy 20:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope I remember this ... trying to keep up with bot assessments on Venezuela articles. Thanks! Will you watch that Dispatch and edit as needed? Don't know when it will run ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it, but I don't expect I will comment. Nehrams has done a fantastic job bringing this to conclusion, and the top GA sweepers should be praised for their work, and relieved that it is done! Geometry guy 22:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

AN/I Notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Possible Administrator misconduct. The discussion is about the topic Conflict of interest and misuse of Administrator privileges during a GA review. Thank you. --Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification - that is courteous. I have replied on your talk page. Geometry guy 08:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolution is always good

No hard feelings :) Much success to all of your endeavors! Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Apology (at/re AN/I) accepted, of course. I likewise wish you well. Geometry guy 20:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)