![]() | "WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Mathematics for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview questions here. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. If you have any questions, you can leave a note on my talk page. Have a great day. – SMasters ( talk) 04:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks for asking: you may regret it! I hope you will be able to produce an interesting and balanced article on the project. Geometry guy 23:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible for you to give us a headups of what still needs fixing, I'm sure the neutrality issues and references have been fixed I've also addressed the injuries issue and will address the reception shortly. Afro ( Talk) 04:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd be happy to have you keep an eye on User_talk:WhatamIdoing#Talkback_2 (and the section above, and elsewhere), which relates to this placement of a tag at a recently promoted GA. WT:EMBED is doubtless how the article came to the attention of the tagging editor.
I'm still mulling over the problem, and am not prepared to propose a solution, but if it's clearer to you, then please feel free to jump in. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I would like to thank you for your excellent comment, I'm sure you realised that my mention of the mouse was a literary device. And it worked. The problem is that the people list has grown considerably since the article passed its review a year ago, and it has been hinted, with many exaggerated interpretations of policy, that the reviewer may have improperly awarded the page its GA badge. -- Kudpung ( talk) 21:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Gguy, could you review this discussion for what seems to be a rather astounding (to me, at least) assertion about sourcing requirements for GAs? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Mulholland Drive. No lie. -- Moni3 ( talk) 22:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, off to Ottawa, just getting back. Can you help me with the images in NIF? I'll do the work if you can give me some specific pointers. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 17:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe you jumped the gun on changing the page title to "Linear map". The most commonly recognized name is "linear transformation" and this is the most distinctive name. The name "map" means all kinds of things; "transformation" is not used for nearly as many things, in fact, hardly any. See further remarks on Talk:Linear map. Zaslav ( talk) 07:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I would like to rectify a possible misunderstanding here. The Malvern GA was reviewed by a very strict but extremely fair reviewer - which is the way it should be. Other admins, not you, however have expressed what appears to be a view that the article may eventually not have been entirely correctly passed, but I would stress that I have no intentions, at least for a long time, of preparing the article for FA. If other members of the project wish to do so much sooner, that is of course fine, but I will probably not participate. I do however remember you saying that you would be prepared to go to Malvern on an investigative excursion, so I assume you are near the area. Any help you can give therefore would be most appreciated, and you do not have to be a specialist in UK geography. Although some Wikipedians insist that editors should only work on articles about the countries they live in, the opposite seems to reflect the current facts.we are mainly, a Malvern physicist who lives and works in Switzerland, a retired linguist/educationalist from Malvern who lives and works most of the time in Thailand, and a former Malvern RRE scientist from the 1950s who lives in America. You are not a member of the WP:WORCS project, but if you hail from, or live in the area and intend to become involve with the entire suite of Malvern articles, I would like to extend the invitation for you to consider joining it. However, going to the Malvern Museum on behalf of Wikipedia might not add much to the article as it stands. If the museum has the original letter, Brian is a very kind and helpfull fellow, a family friend for 30 years, and I'm hoping he will send us a scan or a photo of it. I'm as curious as you are to see what he comes up with. I will be in Malvern in April. -- Kudpung ( talk) 07:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Geometry guy, thanks for updating the PR archive and page. I have noticed that occasionally there are PRs which have no PR template on the article talk page. This happened recently on a PR Finetooth opened and when I asked him about it, this is what he said.
Does this seem like anything that could be done for {{ PR}}? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
PS I also posted this on CBM's talk page. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Geo guy! I'm not sending out thankspam, but I would like to personally thank you for your support and for the kind words. What I learned on this RfA will also go towards continuing to mentor others, especially the younger editors, and participating in the campaign to make RfA a more appealing prospect for users who also need the tools, but who are too afraid to come forward. I trust that you will allow me to poach on your experience from time to time, and I look forward to working together with you as a fellow admin, and perhaps meeting up with you in Malvern when I get over to the UK. Regards, -- Kudpung ( talk) 12:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello. The article David Yates was nominated for Good Article status back in January, but was delisted. I know you contributed to it, so I just wanted to say that I have worked on the article extensively and I think I have resolved the problems that stopped the article for achieving GA status. The reference formatting was an issue as well as the balance, but both have been improved considerably. I have nominated the article for GA status again and User:Betty Logan has agreed to peer review it either today or tomorrow, but she will not carry out a full review due to her being a tad unfamiliar with the criteria. Would it be possible for you to conduct a full review, as I am desperate to get it into GA status? The article is nominated under the Theatre, Film and Drama section. If you can help, I very much appreciate it. If you can't, no worries. Thanks. :) Hallows Horcruxes 17:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I just read your comment on the GAR's talk page. Now while I wanted the reassessment to be closed earlier, its still good to have it closed. Thanks. GamerPro64 ( talk) 18:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to confess that I don't have GAR in my regular scope. Sometimes I turn up there because in my wanderings I note an article is being reassessed, and will look at that particular GAR, and then at others on the GAR page, adding comments or closing the GAR if applicable. I don't generally pay it much mind as I have the sense that GAR is being looked after by Gguy, and so is in capable hands. There are other areas around Wiki where one or more individuals are active and take responsibility (with or without titles) and that is as it should be. Like Gguy I am slightly against the notion of formalising that process if there is no need. If GAR was in need of more organisation or attention and nobody was stepping forward to do the work, then having some form of formal position in which somebody was encouraged into the role would be appropriate. I will look into passing by once a month or so to see how things are going, just in order to help out now and again. Meanwhile, I think many of us already regard Gguy as the person most responsible within the GA project, and as the voice (and ethos) of the project. He has the unseen title of Director of Good Articles, but more important than that he has the respect of people who are aware of what he does. Let's get on with improving the 'pedia and leave formal titles and positions out of it unless needed. The bureaucracy involved in setting up a formal position, and having annual elections, etc, is more than it is worth. Gguy is our go-to guy for as long as he is willing, and everyone is encouraged to get involved in all aspects of the GA project in the true open spirit of Wikipedia. SilkTork * YES! 09:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know I've made some changes to The Incredible Melting Man and responded to your comments at the GAR page. Please take a look and shoot me a response at your earliest convenience. Thanks very much! — Hun ter Ka hn 06:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
There's a small problem with the GA review of St Mary's Church, Astbury. I made some edits to the article, left some comments for some more minor edits to be done (build the lead and clarify some technical terms), and put it on hold. The nominator and main contributor reverted my edits and has asked me to fail the review as he is not happy with me editing the article. I have tried to enter into discussion, but he appears unwilling. It may be a case that someone else coming in and taking over would ease the problem. The work needed to be done is quite small, and I (well, anyone) could do it in less than 30 minutes. Seems odd to fail under those circumstances, but also seems inappropriate to make somebody unhappy, especially as they have been fairly productive so far. What do you think? Would you be willing to take it over. or shall I ask someone else? Or just for a general second opinion? SilkTork * YES! 18:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I hereby award Geometry guy the chair of Supreme Director of Good Articles. I hope you find it comfy. (I got it from Marks & Sparks, so if you don't like the colour you can always get it changed). SilkTork * YES! 09:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You questioned what can be done. I would point you to read a lot of the last year brainstorming session discussions like strategy:Task force/Wikipedia Quality strategy:Task force/Reader Conversion strategy:Task force/Community Health and the strategy:Wikimedia Movement Strategic Plan Summary the Foundation very own conclusions over those discussions.
Things will only get really serious when it will be about time to implement "ideas" in each respective wikis as we will need every contributors to give a good push against inherent communities inertia and conservatism.
-- KrebMarkt ( talk) 20:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I pipped you to the post with the DYK hook! I should have said last night that you can always suggest an ALT hook, but I guess I was a bit tired. Anyway the hook's already been "approved" with the comment "An interesting hook", so maybe I can do something right! I repeat my thanks for your input into the impasse, and will do a bit of work on the article, I hope, later today. Best wishes. -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 09:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi GG!
Elen twice asked for suggestions for alternative wording.
I proposed an alternative on the WP project mathematics talk page. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 15:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to make sure you saw this post I made on Amadscientist's talk page. No need for you to comment or anything, I just try to give people a heads up when I make a comment on somebody else's talk page that mentions them. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 02:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, it made it, largely thanks to your intervention. Also thanks for the latest edits. Just a question on style. I note that you have changed Gomme's comments to the present tense, even though he is dead. I have never been clear on the convention about this. It worries me when I say "Pevsner says", and even more "Ormerod says" (Ormerod was a Cheshire historian who died in 1873). When should I use the present tense, and do we ever use the past? Cheers. -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 09:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
What would it take to take this article to GA? I'm not so concerned with the hacking out prose and format, but with content. Any thoughts on what is needed for an "industry overview"? Or models of GAs that are?
I was thinking some more overall market sizing and segmentation, and then some on methods. Maybe a bit more on pricing or other aspects of the economics.
TCO ( talk) 22:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Geometry guy, I know you have thought carefully about the nuances distinguishing primary and secondary sources in a scientific context in the past. There is a discussion underway at WT:OR on how best to treat these nuances in our policy. It defies an easy answer, because of the differences in sources between different disciplines, and I think the discussion would benefit from your insight. Thank you, Sławomir Biały ( talk) 16:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 24 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Andor Harvey Gomme, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Professor Andor Harvey Gomme's first name was a family joke? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thanks for the article Victuallers ( talk) 08:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi -- if you have time, would you mind taking a look at the note I just posted at WT:FAC? There's a question there for a template expert, and I know you are expert in that area. Thanks -- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Just so you know, Amadscientist ( talk · contribs) has declined to participate any further in the The Incredible Melting Man GAR or review comments that have already been made. — Hun ter Ka hn 20:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
<See User talk:Mrs_muffet#Netball (Geometry guy's comments)>
![]() | "WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Mathematics for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview questions here. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. If you have any questions, you can leave a note on my talk page. Have a great day. – SMasters ( talk) 04:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks for asking: you may regret it! I hope you will be able to produce an interesting and balanced article on the project. Geometry guy 23:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible for you to give us a headups of what still needs fixing, I'm sure the neutrality issues and references have been fixed I've also addressed the injuries issue and will address the reception shortly. Afro ( Talk) 04:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd be happy to have you keep an eye on User_talk:WhatamIdoing#Talkback_2 (and the section above, and elsewhere), which relates to this placement of a tag at a recently promoted GA. WT:EMBED is doubtless how the article came to the attention of the tagging editor.
I'm still mulling over the problem, and am not prepared to propose a solution, but if it's clearer to you, then please feel free to jump in. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I would like to thank you for your excellent comment, I'm sure you realised that my mention of the mouse was a literary device. And it worked. The problem is that the people list has grown considerably since the article passed its review a year ago, and it has been hinted, with many exaggerated interpretations of policy, that the reviewer may have improperly awarded the page its GA badge. -- Kudpung ( talk) 21:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Gguy, could you review this discussion for what seems to be a rather astounding (to me, at least) assertion about sourcing requirements for GAs? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Mulholland Drive. No lie. -- Moni3 ( talk) 22:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, off to Ottawa, just getting back. Can you help me with the images in NIF? I'll do the work if you can give me some specific pointers. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 17:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe you jumped the gun on changing the page title to "Linear map". The most commonly recognized name is "linear transformation" and this is the most distinctive name. The name "map" means all kinds of things; "transformation" is not used for nearly as many things, in fact, hardly any. See further remarks on Talk:Linear map. Zaslav ( talk) 07:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I would like to rectify a possible misunderstanding here. The Malvern GA was reviewed by a very strict but extremely fair reviewer - which is the way it should be. Other admins, not you, however have expressed what appears to be a view that the article may eventually not have been entirely correctly passed, but I would stress that I have no intentions, at least for a long time, of preparing the article for FA. If other members of the project wish to do so much sooner, that is of course fine, but I will probably not participate. I do however remember you saying that you would be prepared to go to Malvern on an investigative excursion, so I assume you are near the area. Any help you can give therefore would be most appreciated, and you do not have to be a specialist in UK geography. Although some Wikipedians insist that editors should only work on articles about the countries they live in, the opposite seems to reflect the current facts.we are mainly, a Malvern physicist who lives and works in Switzerland, a retired linguist/educationalist from Malvern who lives and works most of the time in Thailand, and a former Malvern RRE scientist from the 1950s who lives in America. You are not a member of the WP:WORCS project, but if you hail from, or live in the area and intend to become involve with the entire suite of Malvern articles, I would like to extend the invitation for you to consider joining it. However, going to the Malvern Museum on behalf of Wikipedia might not add much to the article as it stands. If the museum has the original letter, Brian is a very kind and helpfull fellow, a family friend for 30 years, and I'm hoping he will send us a scan or a photo of it. I'm as curious as you are to see what he comes up with. I will be in Malvern in April. -- Kudpung ( talk) 07:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Geometry guy, thanks for updating the PR archive and page. I have noticed that occasionally there are PRs which have no PR template on the article talk page. This happened recently on a PR Finetooth opened and when I asked him about it, this is what he said.
Does this seem like anything that could be done for {{ PR}}? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
PS I also posted this on CBM's talk page. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Geo guy! I'm not sending out thankspam, but I would like to personally thank you for your support and for the kind words. What I learned on this RfA will also go towards continuing to mentor others, especially the younger editors, and participating in the campaign to make RfA a more appealing prospect for users who also need the tools, but who are too afraid to come forward. I trust that you will allow me to poach on your experience from time to time, and I look forward to working together with you as a fellow admin, and perhaps meeting up with you in Malvern when I get over to the UK. Regards, -- Kudpung ( talk) 12:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello. The article David Yates was nominated for Good Article status back in January, but was delisted. I know you contributed to it, so I just wanted to say that I have worked on the article extensively and I think I have resolved the problems that stopped the article for achieving GA status. The reference formatting was an issue as well as the balance, but both have been improved considerably. I have nominated the article for GA status again and User:Betty Logan has agreed to peer review it either today or tomorrow, but she will not carry out a full review due to her being a tad unfamiliar with the criteria. Would it be possible for you to conduct a full review, as I am desperate to get it into GA status? The article is nominated under the Theatre, Film and Drama section. If you can help, I very much appreciate it. If you can't, no worries. Thanks. :) Hallows Horcruxes 17:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I just read your comment on the GAR's talk page. Now while I wanted the reassessment to be closed earlier, its still good to have it closed. Thanks. GamerPro64 ( talk) 18:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to confess that I don't have GAR in my regular scope. Sometimes I turn up there because in my wanderings I note an article is being reassessed, and will look at that particular GAR, and then at others on the GAR page, adding comments or closing the GAR if applicable. I don't generally pay it much mind as I have the sense that GAR is being looked after by Gguy, and so is in capable hands. There are other areas around Wiki where one or more individuals are active and take responsibility (with or without titles) and that is as it should be. Like Gguy I am slightly against the notion of formalising that process if there is no need. If GAR was in need of more organisation or attention and nobody was stepping forward to do the work, then having some form of formal position in which somebody was encouraged into the role would be appropriate. I will look into passing by once a month or so to see how things are going, just in order to help out now and again. Meanwhile, I think many of us already regard Gguy as the person most responsible within the GA project, and as the voice (and ethos) of the project. He has the unseen title of Director of Good Articles, but more important than that he has the respect of people who are aware of what he does. Let's get on with improving the 'pedia and leave formal titles and positions out of it unless needed. The bureaucracy involved in setting up a formal position, and having annual elections, etc, is more than it is worth. Gguy is our go-to guy for as long as he is willing, and everyone is encouraged to get involved in all aspects of the GA project in the true open spirit of Wikipedia. SilkTork * YES! 09:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know I've made some changes to The Incredible Melting Man and responded to your comments at the GAR page. Please take a look and shoot me a response at your earliest convenience. Thanks very much! — Hun ter Ka hn 06:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
There's a small problem with the GA review of St Mary's Church, Astbury. I made some edits to the article, left some comments for some more minor edits to be done (build the lead and clarify some technical terms), and put it on hold. The nominator and main contributor reverted my edits and has asked me to fail the review as he is not happy with me editing the article. I have tried to enter into discussion, but he appears unwilling. It may be a case that someone else coming in and taking over would ease the problem. The work needed to be done is quite small, and I (well, anyone) could do it in less than 30 minutes. Seems odd to fail under those circumstances, but also seems inappropriate to make somebody unhappy, especially as they have been fairly productive so far. What do you think? Would you be willing to take it over. or shall I ask someone else? Or just for a general second opinion? SilkTork * YES! 18:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I hereby award Geometry guy the chair of Supreme Director of Good Articles. I hope you find it comfy. (I got it from Marks & Sparks, so if you don't like the colour you can always get it changed). SilkTork * YES! 09:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You questioned what can be done. I would point you to read a lot of the last year brainstorming session discussions like strategy:Task force/Wikipedia Quality strategy:Task force/Reader Conversion strategy:Task force/Community Health and the strategy:Wikimedia Movement Strategic Plan Summary the Foundation very own conclusions over those discussions.
Things will only get really serious when it will be about time to implement "ideas" in each respective wikis as we will need every contributors to give a good push against inherent communities inertia and conservatism.
-- KrebMarkt ( talk) 20:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I pipped you to the post with the DYK hook! I should have said last night that you can always suggest an ALT hook, but I guess I was a bit tired. Anyway the hook's already been "approved" with the comment "An interesting hook", so maybe I can do something right! I repeat my thanks for your input into the impasse, and will do a bit of work on the article, I hope, later today. Best wishes. -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 09:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi GG!
Elen twice asked for suggestions for alternative wording.
I proposed an alternative on the WP project mathematics talk page. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 15:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to make sure you saw this post I made on Amadscientist's talk page. No need for you to comment or anything, I just try to give people a heads up when I make a comment on somebody else's talk page that mentions them. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 02:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, it made it, largely thanks to your intervention. Also thanks for the latest edits. Just a question on style. I note that you have changed Gomme's comments to the present tense, even though he is dead. I have never been clear on the convention about this. It worries me when I say "Pevsner says", and even more "Ormerod says" (Ormerod was a Cheshire historian who died in 1873). When should I use the present tense, and do we ever use the past? Cheers. -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 09:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
What would it take to take this article to GA? I'm not so concerned with the hacking out prose and format, but with content. Any thoughts on what is needed for an "industry overview"? Or models of GAs that are?
I was thinking some more overall market sizing and segmentation, and then some on methods. Maybe a bit more on pricing or other aspects of the economics.
TCO ( talk) 22:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Geometry guy, I know you have thought carefully about the nuances distinguishing primary and secondary sources in a scientific context in the past. There is a discussion underway at WT:OR on how best to treat these nuances in our policy. It defies an easy answer, because of the differences in sources between different disciplines, and I think the discussion would benefit from your insight. Thank you, Sławomir Biały ( talk) 16:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 24 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Andor Harvey Gomme, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Professor Andor Harvey Gomme's first name was a family joke? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thanks for the article Victuallers ( talk) 08:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi -- if you have time, would you mind taking a look at the note I just posted at WT:FAC? There's a question there for a template expert, and I know you are expert in that area. Thanks -- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Just so you know, Amadscientist ( talk · contribs) has declined to participate any further in the The Incredible Melting Man GAR or review comments that have already been made. — Hun ter Ka hn 20:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
<See User talk:Mrs_muffet#Netball (Geometry guy's comments)>