Thanks for your reply (not worth posting this there) - just to assure you that I do appreciate your reasoning, and the respect and admiration is mutual ;) I still think you're perhaps being a little harsh in your opposition, but your opinion carries a lot of weight with me and I've yet to see you make an ill-considered judgement. Given that it looks like he'll pass, I'm sure Cam will take on board the various suggestions to proceed slowly and carefully with his use of the tools, and with what I know of him, and Roger and Kirill there to help him out, you shouldn't be unduly concerned. EyeSerene talk 11:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I responded to your interesting questions over on my RfA. Cheers!
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 04:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Are we waiting for a bot to finish administrating Talk:Jennifer Brunner?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 22:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I agreed to review Janszoon voyage of 1606 for GA. However, I find the embedded geographical templates in the body of the ariticle terminally distracting and have asked the editor to remove them. Do you have the same reaction as I do, and can an article pass GA with so many embedded geographical templates? Thanking you in advance for your advice. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 02:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, I will work with the issues. Cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I expected it to fail, but like I said, there aren't many people who IMO have the experience, trust, and interest to run. But the third reason I expected it to fail, which I didn't mention in the RfB, was that I know that people would oppose for my role in RfA's. Like I said, I am not going to harbor any ill will towards anyboy (unless they go over the line in making it personal, which I haven't seen.) Right now, I don't know if there will be an crat2. We'll see... a lot depends on where/what I end up doing next.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 18:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering if you could stop by the Banker horse article. It was recently promoted to GA and I am trying to get some more input before possibly pursuing FA. It needs some work with prose and the like... If you don't have the time/interest, would you mind passing along the name of a good c/e?-- Yohmom ( talk) 22:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Bravo. I was going to comment, but I found that you'd said everything that needed to be said. Tim Vickers ( talk) 22:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
For the support on WT:GAN, I hadn't realised that quick failing at GAN had become that contentious. I felt I left a comprehensive review highlighting the issues, and if consensus is that I was wrong, I can take my lumps. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey Geometry, I meant to say this during my RfB, but forgot. In your rationale to oppose, you indicated that I thought Giggy should be an admin despite his revealing somebody's personal information last year---and my belief that he should be an admin. I still do think he should be an admin (although I think his attitude towards WP has soured some over the past few months.) Anyways, I wanted to give you a little bit of history that you probably are unaware of. Yes, I know that the person whose personal information he revealed was mine. While I can't say that I am happy about it, I am not terribly upset either. First, let's remember the context. It happened immediately after one of the most dispicable events to ever happen on WP. He was pissed and had every right to be pissed. The fact that he did so shouldn't come as a surprise because what happened then was outside of the norm. You know that. What you don't know, is that shortly after he revealed my information he sent me an apologetic email. I don't have it anymore, but it basically went to the effect of, "Balloonman, I owe you a huge apology. I blew it. I responded negatively, and revealed some of your personal information. If I could take it back I would. Can you forgive me?" Again, that aren't his exact words, but it's the gist. He was apologizing to me, while he had every right to be utterly pissed at me. In other words, I didn't find out about the incident via his RfA, but rather from him. While he did make a mistake in revealing my information, he did apologize, and we reconciled via email almost immediately---although I will be honest, I couldn't believe that he actually meant it. It took me months before I really believed that he forgave me, but the way he handled my betrayal, will forever have me in the Giggy camp. He showed me a level of maturity I wasn't expecting.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 04:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
A request for the widely renowned lead section connoisseur (I see Lead section guy is still available ;): In the vector space FAC, I'm somehow grappling with comments that request a level of explanation in the lead section that I somehow feel is inappropriate and/or impossible. I'd appreciate if you could have a look (not as somebody who knows what a vector space is, but rather somebody having some experience with balancing guidelines such as WP:NOT PAPER, WP:LEAD and others against the reality of understanding "esoteric" [as a reviewer puts it] mathematical topics). I think I'm benevolent but I'm approaching my wit's ends. Perhaps some fresh input could help. Thanks, Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 15:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I have been reviewing Outliers (book) for GA and have complained about the repetitiousness. The editor has complied and, to some degree, cut it down. Now I can't tell if my irritation at the article is because the subject is a (to me) boring pop science book, or whether I am justified. It really is better now than previously. But I would appreciate your opinion on the article. Thanks! — Mattisse ( Talk) 02:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
A couple of cases for "G'guy Adjudicates Regally", I think. The model reviews proposal already appears moribund - raised around 12 Jan, archived already! I think someone has to pick a few reviews in different subjects and from different reviewers, create a list / summary page for them (with comments like "easy pass", "pass after a lot of work", "didn't quite make it"), and then link it into the top and bottom of the Reviewer's Guide - I suggest both because some would-be reviewers will prefer examples first and others will prefer an overview first.
I also strongly feel that we need to do more to tell editors what's required of articles. Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles has the wrong title, its lead is skimpy and uninviting, and it uses too much WP:jargon. User:Jacklee/Writing good articles has the right tone and some good tips, but is visibly out of date in some respects. I suggest a group of 2-3 willing and fairly experienced reviewers should collaborate, comments should be invited at WT:GAN on the result, then we should incorporate it into the "How to nominate" panel at WP:GAN.
I know it's naughty of me to go through a back channel like this, but the recent discussions seem to produce more grumbles about our difficulties than action to mitigate them. I'd just do it myself if I weren't a relatively new kid on the block. On the other hand you have the status to make things happen. -- Philcha ( talk) 09:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Review pages have been remarkably successful. One side-effect has been a drop in the use of community GAR, which I consider to be a good thing: most fails and delistings give good reasons and are not contested. By chance, I've also noticed that one experienced reviewer (not in present company), who considers quick-failing as an option, hasn't actually used it in nearly a year. Failing without a hold is fine, but failing a good faith nomination should, in my view, involve a review with specific suggestions for improvement, not just generic ones. I agree with Malleus that incremental change is the way to improve GA. Better and more visible advice for nominators, as Philcha proposes, would be one such step. I think WP:Reviewing good articles could also be improved to reflect current practice. Open review can be encouraged in small ways. Geometry guy 21:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
PS. User talk discussions like this are valuable: they aren't a backchannel (unlike email or IRC) as they are visible to the community. I also encourage editors watchlisting this page to contribute to the discussion (hey it even saves me some work sometimes!) In short: welcome!
Geometry, thanks for taking the time to comment on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. I am glad you see how important this guideline will be, since it will determine the inclusion or exclusion of television character and television episodes. I was impressed with how much time and effort you put into explaining your position. Thank you. Ikip ( talk) 10:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I am going to make your deletion template a main space template. With over 2,800 edits of mine deleted too, I like the template. Ikip ( talk) 11:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you need to do some reading! [1]. Giano ( talk) 17:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Several people have indicated they're interested in either participating in my February RFA project or looking over our shoulders; here's the game plan. Anyone who hasn't seen Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies at Meta before, take a quick look. It's now standard stuff, although it was controversial in its day; it outlines various wiki-philosophies such as Eventualism vs. Immediatism and Sysopism vs. Rehabilism vs. Politicism. I think you can see the same conflicts showing up at RFA; in fact, people don't generally argue "philosophies" much these days ... except during RFAs and at WT:RFA, so RFA seems to be the new forum for some old fights and also a few new ones. The lead section to that page says: "People with different views on these spectra may be stuck in a conflict which is actually a meta-conflict." Bingo. For the solution to that problem, I suggest the same old solution: invite people who share similar philosophies to talk with each other and build their case. If you're interested in seeing how this project plays out, watchlist WP:RFACOM. (Not watchlisting userpages in February, sorry, too much work to do; feel free to drop a note on my userpage or participate at RFACOM.) - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 20:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Since we're so concerned about facts, rather than speculation, all of the sudden. Here are the facts. I was stuck with a lame review. I ask you guys for help. I woke up the next morning and the article I wanted help on was at AfD. How would you feel? Sleep on that. Wrad ( talk) 01:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Apology sincerely accepted, Geo, but I'm about done with GA. The reviews I've been getting out of it are getting worse and worse. It seems like nothing but a rubber stamp anymore. The frustration I feel at the process has gradually increased with time, and finally broken into this. I was holding onto my faith in GA most recently because it was one place where writers of smaller articles could get some respect, but this event has convinced me that GA has joined the march against such articles. It is no longer what it used to be. I'll have to find some respect in another way. People may say what they say about WP:OWN (often misinterpreted) and taking things personally, but people need to find some respect and reward for what they do, and it feels like my niche is disappearing. As Raul would say, short article writers are suffering from "resource starvation". They are continually being forbidden access to a vital resource, and are thus dying out. Wrad ( talk) 23:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering if you'd seen this? EyeSerene talk 09:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey Geo, thanks for your wonderful input in the Septimus Heap page. It looks rally good now!! - "Legolas" ( talk) 12:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You sure cheered me up. Whenever you have time I think you can do your stuff on Alan Kotok. I doubt I can improve it any more but will help if anything comes up. There is one question about a source on the article's talk page. - SusanLesch ( talk) 00:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm concerned that this will languish at GAR because it's an article on a subject that many reviewers may not feel confident to pass a second opinion on.
Do you think there's any point in keeping the review open? Not sure I do. -- Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
← Thanks for putting me out of my misery. [2] Two Manchester computers down now, only four more to go before I have to decide whether I'm brave enough to take any of them to FAC. :lol: -- Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I am at a loss for how to improve the article as it stands. Recently my edits have mainly been focusing on minor copyediting, and at this point I feel as though it's time to jump the cliff and hope for the best. I was advised by my teacher ( JimmyButler to wait until my diagram images have passed OTRS verification. At that point, would you support a move for FA? Kind regards, FoodPuma 00:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I had begun reviewing Scientology in Germany when a single purpose account showed up with a long post on Talk:Scientology in Germany/GA1 and then made several fundamental changes to the article. I undid his changes, asking for talk page discussion first, but he immediately reverted to his version. How do I handle this? (It apparently has to do with a POV controversy over Scientology.) — Mattisse ( Talk) 16:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
(←) I've now read the article, some source material, and some of the RfArb and other onwiki background.
Voxpopulis has a point. One of my NPOV tests for articles on controversial topics is to see how easy it is to guess on which side of the controversy the sympathies of the main editors lie. In this case, it was very easy! Ironically, one of the main sources ( Schoen) is about how framing the facts can influence their interpretation. This article does that extensively, for instance in its approach to court rulings according to their outcome. Cherry picking from sources, omitting relevant information and sentence structure (including misuse of words to avoid) add to the bias. The lead is even more selective and does not summarize the article. I may comment further on the review or talk page, particularly if you would find that helpful.
You've picked a tough one to review here! This is a case where it is probably necessary to read as much of the source material as you can before coming to a conclusion. Geometry guy 18:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
at: Talk:Michael_Atiyah#Working_on_the_article_again. Your feedback will be great. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I am very sorry that I cannot stick it out at GA and work with you. I think we could work it out. I was just shocked at your POV and could not adjust quickly. If I could post on your page, and you and I could converse, it would be good. But unfortunately, I am tired of the editors that feel they can intrude on my postings with their own negativity. You may feel that I am over sensitive, but I am so sick of the ugliness. It is not worth it to me right now to continue with GA. I am very sorry and it is not your fault. I am not going to watch you page as I just don't want to know what others are saying. Again, I am sorry. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 04:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I had hoped to draw a line under this conversation so as to avoid the risk to cause more upset to Mattisse. She is not trying to do anything to GA reviewers as far as I can tell, or at least I have the good faith to suppose that. My impression is that she sometimes simply develops a conviction about others intentions, which are contrary to what those intentions actually are. Her view that Malleus and I are "playing a game" is such an example. In my impression Malleus is one of the most vehement critics of those whom he sees treating Wikipedia as a game, and is instead rather dedicated to content. Mattisse's view of my intentions regarding this article are just as far from reality. "Geometry guy feels he knows best." How can anyone know what I feel based on the few bytes I contribute to this Wiki? I don't have the wiki-time to play games. Incidentally, I am not offended or upset by anything said about me in this story and I am always ready to apologize if I have erred or (inadvertently) caused offense.
Concerning the thoughtful issues of substance raised by Jayen, I would stress that GA is a collaborative process. The idea "whether an article is GA or not depends on just one reviewer" is a myth. Articles receive reviews, re-reviews, reassessments, new reviews etc., and at each step, anyone can comment on a review, and anyone can contribute to improving the article while it is under review. Any other state of affairs would be contrary to Pillar Three and WP:OWN.
The special feature of GA is that in each review or individual reassessment, one editor (the initial reviewer) takes full responsibility for the outcome. Mattisse has done so in this case and I respect her decision. This special feature is a matter of efficiency and is a key reason for the success of GA: in many cases, one (or maybe two) reviewers is enough; the process saves the tribunals and long discussions for those few cases where they are really needed.
Regarding the article, so far I have only commented on the less contentious part, and this has already led to significant improvements in neutral prose structure. I hope the article will continue to improve. Improvement most definitely does not mean "do as I say". When I contribute to article talk, I hope other editors will at least read what I say, but since I can go on somewhat sometimes... hmmm, like now... Geometry guy 22:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you please comment on this response to these edits and offer an opinion if you feel inclined. Thanks Voxpopulis ( talk) 01:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you please offer an opinion regarding the following comments by Matisse regarding my edits, none of which have been shown to be disruptive.
None of this is in good faith and it evidences discrimination. Voxpopulis ( talk) 03:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your allegations that I was not assuming good faith toward you:
Tony1, Mattisse and I have all gone over the prose, and I have responded to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Million Dollar Homepage. Could you please revisit to see if your concerns have now been addressed. Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 02:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I have a quandry on this GAN. At the end, there is a section on his nephew's football career. I'd asked that the information be cut, instead it got expanded. I get a feel that it's very WP:COATRACKy, but would appreciate a second opinion. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you almost certainly don't know me, but I'm Tezkag72. I have a small favor to ask; since you're an administrator and have the ability to do this, can you delete all the redirects to my userpage (and if possible, user subpages)? Thanks. Tezkag72 私にどなる 私のはかい 14:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour,
after getting some rest I thought it would be nice to rework vector spaces. You seemed willing to help with some copyedit; I recently did one of the whole article except the lead. If you are up to it, we can perhaps bring it to a better prose-style. I have to say, though, that my English isn't fine enough to spot more or less subtle errors in language registers etc., but I'm surely willing to learn... Also, I'm not sure yet whether I wanna bring it back to another FAC.
Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 22:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Another editor recommended that you would be the one to approach wrt a GA review. I have some concerns regarding the reviewer of obesity.
I have added the lines "
A sedentary lifestyle plays a significant role in obesity. [1] Worldwide there has been a large shift towards less physically demanding work. [2] [3] [4] This has been accompanied by increasing use of mechanized transportation, a greater prevalence of labor saving technology in the home, and less active recreational pursuits. [2] [3] [4]"
Narayanese who is doing the GA review however does not accept the WHO as a sufficient reference. I have added evidence supporting their statement at the page exercise trends.
Maybe the last bit is about leisure presuits is controversial but I do not see any problems with the rest of it. If I would to put all the evidence together and than make this statement that would be WP:SYTH. Would appreciate your opinion. -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits on jimmy wales page. User:Yousaf465 ( talk)
Hey, G guy ... can you have a peek at Wikipedia:FCDW/FTShip when you have time? I'm unclear if it's accurate on GA and GT history, and it needs a lot of work. Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
A while back you reviewed the article Homosexual transsexual for good article criteria. Since then all of the issues you raised have been addressed IMHO. As a courtesy I am letting you know it has been listed for review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Homosexual transsexual/2. Thankyou.-- Hfarmer ( talk) 07:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
hi,
Things eventually got started on A Class discussion. I hope you are keeping on how things are evolving. That's quite interesting in numbers and diversity of the inputs. We may Really get something out of it. Wilkerma saved the day or so ;) -- KrebMarkt 07:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Kopelman2005
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
Thanks for your reply (not worth posting this there) - just to assure you that I do appreciate your reasoning, and the respect and admiration is mutual ;) I still think you're perhaps being a little harsh in your opposition, but your opinion carries a lot of weight with me and I've yet to see you make an ill-considered judgement. Given that it looks like he'll pass, I'm sure Cam will take on board the various suggestions to proceed slowly and carefully with his use of the tools, and with what I know of him, and Roger and Kirill there to help him out, you shouldn't be unduly concerned. EyeSerene talk 11:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I responded to your interesting questions over on my RfA. Cheers!
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 04:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Are we waiting for a bot to finish administrating Talk:Jennifer Brunner?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 22:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I agreed to review Janszoon voyage of 1606 for GA. However, I find the embedded geographical templates in the body of the ariticle terminally distracting and have asked the editor to remove them. Do you have the same reaction as I do, and can an article pass GA with so many embedded geographical templates? Thanking you in advance for your advice. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 02:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, I will work with the issues. Cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I expected it to fail, but like I said, there aren't many people who IMO have the experience, trust, and interest to run. But the third reason I expected it to fail, which I didn't mention in the RfB, was that I know that people would oppose for my role in RfA's. Like I said, I am not going to harbor any ill will towards anyboy (unless they go over the line in making it personal, which I haven't seen.) Right now, I don't know if there will be an crat2. We'll see... a lot depends on where/what I end up doing next.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 18:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering if you could stop by the Banker horse article. It was recently promoted to GA and I am trying to get some more input before possibly pursuing FA. It needs some work with prose and the like... If you don't have the time/interest, would you mind passing along the name of a good c/e?-- Yohmom ( talk) 22:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Bravo. I was going to comment, but I found that you'd said everything that needed to be said. Tim Vickers ( talk) 22:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
For the support on WT:GAN, I hadn't realised that quick failing at GAN had become that contentious. I felt I left a comprehensive review highlighting the issues, and if consensus is that I was wrong, I can take my lumps. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey Geometry, I meant to say this during my RfB, but forgot. In your rationale to oppose, you indicated that I thought Giggy should be an admin despite his revealing somebody's personal information last year---and my belief that he should be an admin. I still do think he should be an admin (although I think his attitude towards WP has soured some over the past few months.) Anyways, I wanted to give you a little bit of history that you probably are unaware of. Yes, I know that the person whose personal information he revealed was mine. While I can't say that I am happy about it, I am not terribly upset either. First, let's remember the context. It happened immediately after one of the most dispicable events to ever happen on WP. He was pissed and had every right to be pissed. The fact that he did so shouldn't come as a surprise because what happened then was outside of the norm. You know that. What you don't know, is that shortly after he revealed my information he sent me an apologetic email. I don't have it anymore, but it basically went to the effect of, "Balloonman, I owe you a huge apology. I blew it. I responded negatively, and revealed some of your personal information. If I could take it back I would. Can you forgive me?" Again, that aren't his exact words, but it's the gist. He was apologizing to me, while he had every right to be utterly pissed at me. In other words, I didn't find out about the incident via his RfA, but rather from him. While he did make a mistake in revealing my information, he did apologize, and we reconciled via email almost immediately---although I will be honest, I couldn't believe that he actually meant it. It took me months before I really believed that he forgave me, but the way he handled my betrayal, will forever have me in the Giggy camp. He showed me a level of maturity I wasn't expecting.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 04:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
A request for the widely renowned lead section connoisseur (I see Lead section guy is still available ;): In the vector space FAC, I'm somehow grappling with comments that request a level of explanation in the lead section that I somehow feel is inappropriate and/or impossible. I'd appreciate if you could have a look (not as somebody who knows what a vector space is, but rather somebody having some experience with balancing guidelines such as WP:NOT PAPER, WP:LEAD and others against the reality of understanding "esoteric" [as a reviewer puts it] mathematical topics). I think I'm benevolent but I'm approaching my wit's ends. Perhaps some fresh input could help. Thanks, Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 15:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I have been reviewing Outliers (book) for GA and have complained about the repetitiousness. The editor has complied and, to some degree, cut it down. Now I can't tell if my irritation at the article is because the subject is a (to me) boring pop science book, or whether I am justified. It really is better now than previously. But I would appreciate your opinion on the article. Thanks! — Mattisse ( Talk) 02:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
A couple of cases for "G'guy Adjudicates Regally", I think. The model reviews proposal already appears moribund - raised around 12 Jan, archived already! I think someone has to pick a few reviews in different subjects and from different reviewers, create a list / summary page for them (with comments like "easy pass", "pass after a lot of work", "didn't quite make it"), and then link it into the top and bottom of the Reviewer's Guide - I suggest both because some would-be reviewers will prefer examples first and others will prefer an overview first.
I also strongly feel that we need to do more to tell editors what's required of articles. Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles has the wrong title, its lead is skimpy and uninviting, and it uses too much WP:jargon. User:Jacklee/Writing good articles has the right tone and some good tips, but is visibly out of date in some respects. I suggest a group of 2-3 willing and fairly experienced reviewers should collaborate, comments should be invited at WT:GAN on the result, then we should incorporate it into the "How to nominate" panel at WP:GAN.
I know it's naughty of me to go through a back channel like this, but the recent discussions seem to produce more grumbles about our difficulties than action to mitigate them. I'd just do it myself if I weren't a relatively new kid on the block. On the other hand you have the status to make things happen. -- Philcha ( talk) 09:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Review pages have been remarkably successful. One side-effect has been a drop in the use of community GAR, which I consider to be a good thing: most fails and delistings give good reasons and are not contested. By chance, I've also noticed that one experienced reviewer (not in present company), who considers quick-failing as an option, hasn't actually used it in nearly a year. Failing without a hold is fine, but failing a good faith nomination should, in my view, involve a review with specific suggestions for improvement, not just generic ones. I agree with Malleus that incremental change is the way to improve GA. Better and more visible advice for nominators, as Philcha proposes, would be one such step. I think WP:Reviewing good articles could also be improved to reflect current practice. Open review can be encouraged in small ways. Geometry guy 21:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
PS. User talk discussions like this are valuable: they aren't a backchannel (unlike email or IRC) as they are visible to the community. I also encourage editors watchlisting this page to contribute to the discussion (hey it even saves me some work sometimes!) In short: welcome!
Geometry, thanks for taking the time to comment on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. I am glad you see how important this guideline will be, since it will determine the inclusion or exclusion of television character and television episodes. I was impressed with how much time and effort you put into explaining your position. Thank you. Ikip ( talk) 10:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I am going to make your deletion template a main space template. With over 2,800 edits of mine deleted too, I like the template. Ikip ( talk) 11:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you need to do some reading! [1]. Giano ( talk) 17:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Several people have indicated they're interested in either participating in my February RFA project or looking over our shoulders; here's the game plan. Anyone who hasn't seen Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies at Meta before, take a quick look. It's now standard stuff, although it was controversial in its day; it outlines various wiki-philosophies such as Eventualism vs. Immediatism and Sysopism vs. Rehabilism vs. Politicism. I think you can see the same conflicts showing up at RFA; in fact, people don't generally argue "philosophies" much these days ... except during RFAs and at WT:RFA, so RFA seems to be the new forum for some old fights and also a few new ones. The lead section to that page says: "People with different views on these spectra may be stuck in a conflict which is actually a meta-conflict." Bingo. For the solution to that problem, I suggest the same old solution: invite people who share similar philosophies to talk with each other and build their case. If you're interested in seeing how this project plays out, watchlist WP:RFACOM. (Not watchlisting userpages in February, sorry, too much work to do; feel free to drop a note on my userpage or participate at RFACOM.) - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 20:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Since we're so concerned about facts, rather than speculation, all of the sudden. Here are the facts. I was stuck with a lame review. I ask you guys for help. I woke up the next morning and the article I wanted help on was at AfD. How would you feel? Sleep on that. Wrad ( talk) 01:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Apology sincerely accepted, Geo, but I'm about done with GA. The reviews I've been getting out of it are getting worse and worse. It seems like nothing but a rubber stamp anymore. The frustration I feel at the process has gradually increased with time, and finally broken into this. I was holding onto my faith in GA most recently because it was one place where writers of smaller articles could get some respect, but this event has convinced me that GA has joined the march against such articles. It is no longer what it used to be. I'll have to find some respect in another way. People may say what they say about WP:OWN (often misinterpreted) and taking things personally, but people need to find some respect and reward for what they do, and it feels like my niche is disappearing. As Raul would say, short article writers are suffering from "resource starvation". They are continually being forbidden access to a vital resource, and are thus dying out. Wrad ( talk) 23:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering if you'd seen this? EyeSerene talk 09:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey Geo, thanks for your wonderful input in the Septimus Heap page. It looks rally good now!! - "Legolas" ( talk) 12:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You sure cheered me up. Whenever you have time I think you can do your stuff on Alan Kotok. I doubt I can improve it any more but will help if anything comes up. There is one question about a source on the article's talk page. - SusanLesch ( talk) 00:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm concerned that this will languish at GAR because it's an article on a subject that many reviewers may not feel confident to pass a second opinion on.
Do you think there's any point in keeping the review open? Not sure I do. -- Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
← Thanks for putting me out of my misery. [2] Two Manchester computers down now, only four more to go before I have to decide whether I'm brave enough to take any of them to FAC. :lol: -- Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I am at a loss for how to improve the article as it stands. Recently my edits have mainly been focusing on minor copyediting, and at this point I feel as though it's time to jump the cliff and hope for the best. I was advised by my teacher ( JimmyButler to wait until my diagram images have passed OTRS verification. At that point, would you support a move for FA? Kind regards, FoodPuma 00:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I had begun reviewing Scientology in Germany when a single purpose account showed up with a long post on Talk:Scientology in Germany/GA1 and then made several fundamental changes to the article. I undid his changes, asking for talk page discussion first, but he immediately reverted to his version. How do I handle this? (It apparently has to do with a POV controversy over Scientology.) — Mattisse ( Talk) 16:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
(←) I've now read the article, some source material, and some of the RfArb and other onwiki background.
Voxpopulis has a point. One of my NPOV tests for articles on controversial topics is to see how easy it is to guess on which side of the controversy the sympathies of the main editors lie. In this case, it was very easy! Ironically, one of the main sources ( Schoen) is about how framing the facts can influence their interpretation. This article does that extensively, for instance in its approach to court rulings according to their outcome. Cherry picking from sources, omitting relevant information and sentence structure (including misuse of words to avoid) add to the bias. The lead is even more selective and does not summarize the article. I may comment further on the review or talk page, particularly if you would find that helpful.
You've picked a tough one to review here! This is a case where it is probably necessary to read as much of the source material as you can before coming to a conclusion. Geometry guy 18:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
at: Talk:Michael_Atiyah#Working_on_the_article_again. Your feedback will be great. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I am very sorry that I cannot stick it out at GA and work with you. I think we could work it out. I was just shocked at your POV and could not adjust quickly. If I could post on your page, and you and I could converse, it would be good. But unfortunately, I am tired of the editors that feel they can intrude on my postings with their own negativity. You may feel that I am over sensitive, but I am so sick of the ugliness. It is not worth it to me right now to continue with GA. I am very sorry and it is not your fault. I am not going to watch you page as I just don't want to know what others are saying. Again, I am sorry. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 04:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I had hoped to draw a line under this conversation so as to avoid the risk to cause more upset to Mattisse. She is not trying to do anything to GA reviewers as far as I can tell, or at least I have the good faith to suppose that. My impression is that she sometimes simply develops a conviction about others intentions, which are contrary to what those intentions actually are. Her view that Malleus and I are "playing a game" is such an example. In my impression Malleus is one of the most vehement critics of those whom he sees treating Wikipedia as a game, and is instead rather dedicated to content. Mattisse's view of my intentions regarding this article are just as far from reality. "Geometry guy feels he knows best." How can anyone know what I feel based on the few bytes I contribute to this Wiki? I don't have the wiki-time to play games. Incidentally, I am not offended or upset by anything said about me in this story and I am always ready to apologize if I have erred or (inadvertently) caused offense.
Concerning the thoughtful issues of substance raised by Jayen, I would stress that GA is a collaborative process. The idea "whether an article is GA or not depends on just one reviewer" is a myth. Articles receive reviews, re-reviews, reassessments, new reviews etc., and at each step, anyone can comment on a review, and anyone can contribute to improving the article while it is under review. Any other state of affairs would be contrary to Pillar Three and WP:OWN.
The special feature of GA is that in each review or individual reassessment, one editor (the initial reviewer) takes full responsibility for the outcome. Mattisse has done so in this case and I respect her decision. This special feature is a matter of efficiency and is a key reason for the success of GA: in many cases, one (or maybe two) reviewers is enough; the process saves the tribunals and long discussions for those few cases where they are really needed.
Regarding the article, so far I have only commented on the less contentious part, and this has already led to significant improvements in neutral prose structure. I hope the article will continue to improve. Improvement most definitely does not mean "do as I say". When I contribute to article talk, I hope other editors will at least read what I say, but since I can go on somewhat sometimes... hmmm, like now... Geometry guy 22:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you please comment on this response to these edits and offer an opinion if you feel inclined. Thanks Voxpopulis ( talk) 01:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you please offer an opinion regarding the following comments by Matisse regarding my edits, none of which have been shown to be disruptive.
None of this is in good faith and it evidences discrimination. Voxpopulis ( talk) 03:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your allegations that I was not assuming good faith toward you:
Tony1, Mattisse and I have all gone over the prose, and I have responded to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Million Dollar Homepage. Could you please revisit to see if your concerns have now been addressed. Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 02:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I have a quandry on this GAN. At the end, there is a section on his nephew's football career. I'd asked that the information be cut, instead it got expanded. I get a feel that it's very WP:COATRACKy, but would appreciate a second opinion. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you almost certainly don't know me, but I'm Tezkag72. I have a small favor to ask; since you're an administrator and have the ability to do this, can you delete all the redirects to my userpage (and if possible, user subpages)? Thanks. Tezkag72 私にどなる 私のはかい 14:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour,
after getting some rest I thought it would be nice to rework vector spaces. You seemed willing to help with some copyedit; I recently did one of the whole article except the lead. If you are up to it, we can perhaps bring it to a better prose-style. I have to say, though, that my English isn't fine enough to spot more or less subtle errors in language registers etc., but I'm surely willing to learn... Also, I'm not sure yet whether I wanna bring it back to another FAC.
Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 22:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Another editor recommended that you would be the one to approach wrt a GA review. I have some concerns regarding the reviewer of obesity.
I have added the lines "
A sedentary lifestyle plays a significant role in obesity. [1] Worldwide there has been a large shift towards less physically demanding work. [2] [3] [4] This has been accompanied by increasing use of mechanized transportation, a greater prevalence of labor saving technology in the home, and less active recreational pursuits. [2] [3] [4]"
Narayanese who is doing the GA review however does not accept the WHO as a sufficient reference. I have added evidence supporting their statement at the page exercise trends.
Maybe the last bit is about leisure presuits is controversial but I do not see any problems with the rest of it. If I would to put all the evidence together and than make this statement that would be WP:SYTH. Would appreciate your opinion. -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits on jimmy wales page. User:Yousaf465 ( talk)
Hey, G guy ... can you have a peek at Wikipedia:FCDW/FTShip when you have time? I'm unclear if it's accurate on GA and GT history, and it needs a lot of work. Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
A while back you reviewed the article Homosexual transsexual for good article criteria. Since then all of the issues you raised have been addressed IMHO. As a courtesy I am letting you know it has been listed for review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Homosexual transsexual/2. Thankyou.-- Hfarmer ( talk) 07:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
hi,
Things eventually got started on A Class discussion. I hope you are keeping on how things are evolving. That's quite interesting in numbers and diversity of the inputs. We may Really get something out of it. Wilkerma saved the day or so ;) -- KrebMarkt 07:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Kopelman2005
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)