The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would you mind communicating this to User:Racepacket? This is the basis of the RFC against him. -- Rs chen 7754 19:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
If you, Geometry guy, want to step and and replace me as the spokesman for the NPOV netball policy position, I will be happy to step aside. I have no inherent interest in the sport, but took up the GA review out of duty to address our queue. I had been reluctant to make further comments on the articles, but based on the feedback I received, I left a peer review of Netball in the Cook Islands. As you can see from the edit summary, it was not well-received. I do not want to harass or cause distress, I just want the NPOV restored before the articles move to GA or FA. Please help, because my actions are being misinterpreted by LauraHale as mean-spirited. Any guidance would be appreciated. Racepacket ( talk) 05:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The Good Article Reviewer's Barnstar | ||
Please consider this a modest thank you for your efforts in improving The Incredible Melting Man and guiding it through the GAR process. I was confident the article could be brought up to GA status, but not many editors would have been so thorough and willing to help as you, and I truly believe the article is much better off thanks to your input. |
I am, as a gesture of cooperation and willingness to listen, planning to start the RFC that Racepacket wants, probably over the weekend. IMO the ultimate conclusion is foregone and the location unimportant, but perhaps someone will learn something from it. Do you mind if it's at WT:WPGA? There are other options, including WT:COUNCIL and a subpage in the RFC space. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
We haven't been in touch lately, I hope things are going well. Do you have any thoughts about this question [1]? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 00:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, there is an ongoing discussion at FAC of logarithm mostly concerning the first sentence of the article. Currently it reads "The logarithm of a number to a given base is the exponent to which the base must be raised to produce that number.", but two reviewers ( Noetica and Tony1) consider this suboptimal. Since the discussion essentially boils down to the question whether a mathematical concept should first be defined properly or by paraphrasing it, I'm seeking some advice to balance the two points of view. I appreciate any input you might have. Thx, Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 13:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Racepacket and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, -- LauraHale ( talk) 18:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 07:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
First, as a preface, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket is going on and the issues of the Good Article process have come up in regards to Netball, Netball in the Cook Islands, Netball and the Olympic Movement. The first has come up for a GAR. I'm uncomfortable with that, not because I don't think the article is good, but rather because the evidence shows a history of sock puppeting and canvassing. But whatever.
My bigger concerns are Talk:Women's sport at the Olympics, where User talk:Basement12 I think has said that Netball and the Olympic Movement is problematic and needs to be nominated for GAR because of the extension copying between Women's sport at the Olympics and Netball and the Olympic Movement or because the Netball and the Olympic Movement does not stand alone with information to warrant its own topic and thus isn't worth Good Article status. I may not be understanding what he is saying correctly. I'm also unclear as to what the guidelines are for Good Articles. Can you help me understand what is going on? What relevant guidelines apply? Are there issues with Netball and the Olympic Movement that I can fix to help improve chances of passing a GAR? If the articles really should be merged, then I would understand that. I'm just confused because I haven't seen that... but if that is the consensus decision, then I'll live with that. If Netball and the Olympic Movement doesn't meet the Good Article criteria and needs to be delisted, that's fine. (And I'd be happy to work towards fixing it but I'm just not certain what I'm supposed to be fixing.) Anyway, if you have any guidance and insight into what is going on, that would be helpful because I'm a bit lost here. :( Any help would be massively appreciate because I'm a bit confused. -- LauraHale ( talk) 00:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. May I request your help as a neutral voice to help settle a dispute? The issue is about whether it is appropriate (in terms of notability) to include an ethnicity label in the infobox for Albert Einstein. I think that the discussion on the talk page there has wandered off course (at least between me and one other editor), so I wanted a disinterested person to analyze the rational arguments and weigh an opinion. If you would be willing to do this and wish to hear my thoughts on the matter, I would be happy to explain my reasoning. LJosil ( talk) 03:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
For old time's sake, I went back into the archives of Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, where I first brought up the idea of having a bot automate the nominations list at WP:GAN. I noticed through my trip to nostalgia land that even with people criticizing the bot out of fear, out of not really knowing what was going on, you were there as my patient defender, going as far as to write multi-paragraph messages to re-assure people that the bot is a step in the right direction. Better yet, you challenged me to make the bot the most versatile, the most robust, the best bot it could possibly be. After the bot had been incubating for a year, you took another look at the bot — like an old pal from a past life — and you said it was ready for the big leagues. I say GA bot is my finest piece of coding yet, but were it not for your support and your advice, it would not be nearly as awesome as it is today. Thank you for everything you've done to help me as a programmer and the good article nomination process. harej 06:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
You, I note, were one of the last people to interact with user Mattisse on enWP prior to xyr final indefinite block.Your considered opinion on seemingly similar disruptive behaviour on Wikinews would be welcome (see n:WN:WC.) -- Brian McNeil / talk 07:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian McNeil ( talk • contribs)
I been biting my tongue for days, now. If you really, really feel that you need to be the defender of the Wiki, then do it off of his talk page. Mall-man has his issues, but you are just being an ass bugging him on his talk page. Leave the guy that space. TCO ( talk) 19:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Racepacket has closed and the final decision is now viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [ • 21:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi GG!
There is a control mathematician who likes to write WP articles who has nominated himself for RfA. I noted that you (at least the last time I checked your self description say a year ago) rarely use the tools, but were still a valuable administrator. Thus, I wanted to inform you.
Best regards, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 22:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I was recently filling out a GA review and kept getting Pending come up in view mode in two of the fields, rather than the text I had actually written there. Turns out the problem was the inclusion of http links in the fields (see [2]) – if this is indeed a bug, could you possibly try to find a way to fix it? Thanks very much. It Is Me Here t / c 13:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
For never failing to write a funny edit summary when archiving WP:PR, I award you this Barnstar of Good Humor. Buggie111 ( talk) 22:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks! I started these edit summaries both to raise awareness of the global nature of Wikipedia and also to keep PR in editors' minds (after automation made the page essentially static). However, these days, I think Wikipedia needs a lot more good-natured humor to function, and I am glad to contribute to that. Geometry guy 23:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
May I congratulate you on the enormous amount of thought and knowledge that you have brought to this, even though I know closure is still in progress. I really appreciate the longer rationale, and I look forward to reading the final "installment" of your thoughts. -- John ( talk) 20:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I've now closed the above (got to it later than I'd hoped because my daughter's started uni this weekend). However, the {{ articlehistory}} seems to have been filled in on 19 Sept and I can't find the article at WP:GA; someone may have jumped the gun a tad. On the other hand, I may be missing something. Your advice would be appreciated... EyeSerene talk 20:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Geometry Guy!
You deserve a break after your excellent mediation at the 9/11 page. However, life is unfair! ;)
I want to thank you again for your work on the SF lemma, and just let you know that I nominated it at FAC. I noted on my talk page my two main concerns, in a discussion with MF. I expect that the article will improve with further copy editing, at least, and hope that it may pass (with reasonable improvements after reasonable criticism).
Best regards, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 22:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi GG, I hope this finds you well. My name is Matthew and I'm one of the Storytellers working for the Wikimedia Foundation on the 2011 fundraiser. This year we're broadening the scope and the voices of the Wikipedians we profile in the fundraising banners and appeals. While Jimbo has been very successful bringing in the treasure in previous years, he alone doesn't represent the diversity of people who make the projects so important. I'm curious if you would like to participate in an interview with me for this year's efforts? They usually last 60 minutes and I would ask a number of questions about your personal editing experiences and about Wikipedia more broadly. Also, you were recommended to me by Scartol, who I recently interviewed. If you're interested, please email mroth (at) wikimedia.org and we can set up a good time. Thank you! Matthew (WMF) 01:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
For List of important publications in biology and List of important publications in sociology. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 22:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Geometry guy. I've watched with interest your conversation on Elen's page, and I would genuinely appreciate some feedback if you have any to give. Specifically, I wonder if you feel I could have handled things differently. I've been over the past few months a number of times, and the only thing I could see to do differently is closing the ANI on 6 August, rather than commenting on it, suggesting an RfC would be better. That way, many things said would not have been said and the strain all round might have been averted. But since I wasn't that bold - and I think it reasonable that I wasn't - I've always remained calm and amicable, tried to discuss things directly with Kiefer and not risen to the considerable lambasting I've taken regarding this RfC.
My only other option was to turn a "blind eye" to the entire situation, but I am not willing to do this until it has been discussed. I do not want to drive Kiefer off the encyclopedia, I'm not trying to lynch him - but I think the desired outcomes are not unreasonable. I would also be happy for this to be a two way discussion, and if there is any way in which I can improve, I would be glad to hear it. WormTT · ( talk) 10:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Geometry guy,
I posted a quotation from the talk page of LK at the talk page of the RfC, because you suggested that I would consider his remarks and act on them (insofar as able).
Cheers, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 23:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you a lot for your help with the attribution etc. Judging from your last comment, my arguments as to the specifics of the need for RS didn't particularly convinced you. As for enthusiasm, ... WillNess ( talk) 09:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC) bunch of inappropriate stuff removed. Sorry about that. WillNess ( talk) 21:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I reverted your category specialization at Shannon–Hartley theorem because I couldn't think of anything discrete about it. Bandwidth, noise, information, continuous-time signals, all continuous stuff. What do you think? Dicklyon ( talk) 22:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank-you for the comments here. It's not the first time I've seen comments like that, but you put things much better than I could have done. One thing I have been doing is trying to work out a better way to put things, and "distancing prose from the source material" looks good to me. For the record, I was at pains to avoid saying 'plagiarism', as that was most certainly not what I was trying to say (for one thing, discussion would be needed before coming to any conclusions, though discussing first is a concept alien to some).
If you look at the FAC (I've finished there now, so I think it is OK to point to it), this all started from my post at 22:12, 21 October 2011, where I said "I also have some figures on word counts and (now I've been taking a closer look) some nascent concerns about similarities in wording and structure between this article and [one of the sources]. Would you be willing to discuss that on the article talk page rather than here?" The nominator responded by opening a section on the article talk page with results from their use of a duplication detector tool, which I was actually a bit taken aback by, but I thought 'fair enough, I'll point out examples for discussion', and then spent the next hour or so pulling together the examples I posted.
When posting those examples, I edit conflicted with the 00:33, 22 October 2011 post and after reloading the page and posting those examples at 01:11, I posted a reply at 01:15 to the post I'd edit conflicted with. It was actually in the 00:33 post that the terms 'close paraphrasing' and 'plagarism' (sic) were used for the first time (by the nominator, not me). With hindsight, I should have said something then, making clearer that (as I said in my 01:11 post) that my view was that 'the wording and also the sentence structure of this article does need to move away from that used by [the source]'. This wasn't intended to be an oblique reference, but rather a way of broaching the subject in a non-inflammatory fashion.
What I didn't expect was the 'call a spade a spade and stop pussy-footing around and say what you mean' (I'm paraphrasing there) response from Malleus (though he did have a point). What I've learnt from this is that no matter how you raise a subject like this, some people will get offended, and that it may be better to post just a single example first and let discussion evolve from there (rather than post a whole lot of examples). Anyway, sorry for posting such a long account, but I needed to get that off my chest. I also didn't want to post at Malleus's talk page again, but it would be good if he and others saw this at some point. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the stroopwaffles. The virtual ones are so great because they are of course sugar free. Things are stressed in real life at the moment - I work for an English local authority, and we are shedding about 1/3 of our staff, and there's lots of stuff around that, and last week was a bit of a nightmare. I edit Wikipedia to get away from that, but if you think it's spilling over, perhaps I ought to back off a bit and stick to rescuing genuine articles from the clutches of new page patrollers who don't understand what A7 actually says.-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
[3] Sadly. Just thought you might like to be aware. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 15:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
And so it is. Let us enjoy all that is good about Wikipedia. Geometry guy 00:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I've requested community reassessments for Warcraft II and Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares. -- Philcha ( talk) 15:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi - please stop posting at my talkpage - I have deleted a couple already, your posts don't seems beneficial to constructive discussion - thanks - Off2riorob ( talk) 23:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Geometry guy, you have a reply at my talk. RFA Guy ( talk) 17:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Geometry guy, I do not want any problems. If there is anything I can apologize for, I do now. RFA Guy ( talk) 21:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi -- do you have a minute to take a look at a template for me? I was trying to collapse the huge navbox at the bottom of Missouri Democratic Party, but can't seem to make it work. Am I doing something dumb, or is this actually broken? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would you mind communicating this to User:Racepacket? This is the basis of the RFC against him. -- Rs chen 7754 19:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
If you, Geometry guy, want to step and and replace me as the spokesman for the NPOV netball policy position, I will be happy to step aside. I have no inherent interest in the sport, but took up the GA review out of duty to address our queue. I had been reluctant to make further comments on the articles, but based on the feedback I received, I left a peer review of Netball in the Cook Islands. As you can see from the edit summary, it was not well-received. I do not want to harass or cause distress, I just want the NPOV restored before the articles move to GA or FA. Please help, because my actions are being misinterpreted by LauraHale as mean-spirited. Any guidance would be appreciated. Racepacket ( talk) 05:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The Good Article Reviewer's Barnstar | ||
Please consider this a modest thank you for your efforts in improving The Incredible Melting Man and guiding it through the GAR process. I was confident the article could be brought up to GA status, but not many editors would have been so thorough and willing to help as you, and I truly believe the article is much better off thanks to your input. |
I am, as a gesture of cooperation and willingness to listen, planning to start the RFC that Racepacket wants, probably over the weekend. IMO the ultimate conclusion is foregone and the location unimportant, but perhaps someone will learn something from it. Do you mind if it's at WT:WPGA? There are other options, including WT:COUNCIL and a subpage in the RFC space. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
We haven't been in touch lately, I hope things are going well. Do you have any thoughts about this question [1]? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 00:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, there is an ongoing discussion at FAC of logarithm mostly concerning the first sentence of the article. Currently it reads "The logarithm of a number to a given base is the exponent to which the base must be raised to produce that number.", but two reviewers ( Noetica and Tony1) consider this suboptimal. Since the discussion essentially boils down to the question whether a mathematical concept should first be defined properly or by paraphrasing it, I'm seeking some advice to balance the two points of view. I appreciate any input you might have. Thx, Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 13:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Racepacket and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, -- LauraHale ( talk) 18:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 07:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
First, as a preface, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket is going on and the issues of the Good Article process have come up in regards to Netball, Netball in the Cook Islands, Netball and the Olympic Movement. The first has come up for a GAR. I'm uncomfortable with that, not because I don't think the article is good, but rather because the evidence shows a history of sock puppeting and canvassing. But whatever.
My bigger concerns are Talk:Women's sport at the Olympics, where User talk:Basement12 I think has said that Netball and the Olympic Movement is problematic and needs to be nominated for GAR because of the extension copying between Women's sport at the Olympics and Netball and the Olympic Movement or because the Netball and the Olympic Movement does not stand alone with information to warrant its own topic and thus isn't worth Good Article status. I may not be understanding what he is saying correctly. I'm also unclear as to what the guidelines are for Good Articles. Can you help me understand what is going on? What relevant guidelines apply? Are there issues with Netball and the Olympic Movement that I can fix to help improve chances of passing a GAR? If the articles really should be merged, then I would understand that. I'm just confused because I haven't seen that... but if that is the consensus decision, then I'll live with that. If Netball and the Olympic Movement doesn't meet the Good Article criteria and needs to be delisted, that's fine. (And I'd be happy to work towards fixing it but I'm just not certain what I'm supposed to be fixing.) Anyway, if you have any guidance and insight into what is going on, that would be helpful because I'm a bit lost here. :( Any help would be massively appreciate because I'm a bit confused. -- LauraHale ( talk) 00:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. May I request your help as a neutral voice to help settle a dispute? The issue is about whether it is appropriate (in terms of notability) to include an ethnicity label in the infobox for Albert Einstein. I think that the discussion on the talk page there has wandered off course (at least between me and one other editor), so I wanted a disinterested person to analyze the rational arguments and weigh an opinion. If you would be willing to do this and wish to hear my thoughts on the matter, I would be happy to explain my reasoning. LJosil ( talk) 03:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
For old time's sake, I went back into the archives of Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, where I first brought up the idea of having a bot automate the nominations list at WP:GAN. I noticed through my trip to nostalgia land that even with people criticizing the bot out of fear, out of not really knowing what was going on, you were there as my patient defender, going as far as to write multi-paragraph messages to re-assure people that the bot is a step in the right direction. Better yet, you challenged me to make the bot the most versatile, the most robust, the best bot it could possibly be. After the bot had been incubating for a year, you took another look at the bot — like an old pal from a past life — and you said it was ready for the big leagues. I say GA bot is my finest piece of coding yet, but were it not for your support and your advice, it would not be nearly as awesome as it is today. Thank you for everything you've done to help me as a programmer and the good article nomination process. harej 06:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
You, I note, were one of the last people to interact with user Mattisse on enWP prior to xyr final indefinite block.Your considered opinion on seemingly similar disruptive behaviour on Wikinews would be welcome (see n:WN:WC.) -- Brian McNeil / talk 07:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian McNeil ( talk • contribs)
I been biting my tongue for days, now. If you really, really feel that you need to be the defender of the Wiki, then do it off of his talk page. Mall-man has his issues, but you are just being an ass bugging him on his talk page. Leave the guy that space. TCO ( talk) 19:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Racepacket has closed and the final decision is now viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [ • 21:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi GG!
There is a control mathematician who likes to write WP articles who has nominated himself for RfA. I noted that you (at least the last time I checked your self description say a year ago) rarely use the tools, but were still a valuable administrator. Thus, I wanted to inform you.
Best regards, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 22:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I was recently filling out a GA review and kept getting Pending come up in view mode in two of the fields, rather than the text I had actually written there. Turns out the problem was the inclusion of http links in the fields (see [2]) – if this is indeed a bug, could you possibly try to find a way to fix it? Thanks very much. It Is Me Here t / c 13:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
For never failing to write a funny edit summary when archiving WP:PR, I award you this Barnstar of Good Humor. Buggie111 ( talk) 22:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks! I started these edit summaries both to raise awareness of the global nature of Wikipedia and also to keep PR in editors' minds (after automation made the page essentially static). However, these days, I think Wikipedia needs a lot more good-natured humor to function, and I am glad to contribute to that. Geometry guy 23:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
May I congratulate you on the enormous amount of thought and knowledge that you have brought to this, even though I know closure is still in progress. I really appreciate the longer rationale, and I look forward to reading the final "installment" of your thoughts. -- John ( talk) 20:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I've now closed the above (got to it later than I'd hoped because my daughter's started uni this weekend). However, the {{ articlehistory}} seems to have been filled in on 19 Sept and I can't find the article at WP:GA; someone may have jumped the gun a tad. On the other hand, I may be missing something. Your advice would be appreciated... EyeSerene talk 20:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Geometry Guy!
You deserve a break after your excellent mediation at the 9/11 page. However, life is unfair! ;)
I want to thank you again for your work on the SF lemma, and just let you know that I nominated it at FAC. I noted on my talk page my two main concerns, in a discussion with MF. I expect that the article will improve with further copy editing, at least, and hope that it may pass (with reasonable improvements after reasonable criticism).
Best regards, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 22:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi GG, I hope this finds you well. My name is Matthew and I'm one of the Storytellers working for the Wikimedia Foundation on the 2011 fundraiser. This year we're broadening the scope and the voices of the Wikipedians we profile in the fundraising banners and appeals. While Jimbo has been very successful bringing in the treasure in previous years, he alone doesn't represent the diversity of people who make the projects so important. I'm curious if you would like to participate in an interview with me for this year's efforts? They usually last 60 minutes and I would ask a number of questions about your personal editing experiences and about Wikipedia more broadly. Also, you were recommended to me by Scartol, who I recently interviewed. If you're interested, please email mroth (at) wikimedia.org and we can set up a good time. Thank you! Matthew (WMF) 01:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
For List of important publications in biology and List of important publications in sociology. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 22:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Geometry guy. I've watched with interest your conversation on Elen's page, and I would genuinely appreciate some feedback if you have any to give. Specifically, I wonder if you feel I could have handled things differently. I've been over the past few months a number of times, and the only thing I could see to do differently is closing the ANI on 6 August, rather than commenting on it, suggesting an RfC would be better. That way, many things said would not have been said and the strain all round might have been averted. But since I wasn't that bold - and I think it reasonable that I wasn't - I've always remained calm and amicable, tried to discuss things directly with Kiefer and not risen to the considerable lambasting I've taken regarding this RfC.
My only other option was to turn a "blind eye" to the entire situation, but I am not willing to do this until it has been discussed. I do not want to drive Kiefer off the encyclopedia, I'm not trying to lynch him - but I think the desired outcomes are not unreasonable. I would also be happy for this to be a two way discussion, and if there is any way in which I can improve, I would be glad to hear it. WormTT · ( talk) 10:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Geometry guy,
I posted a quotation from the talk page of LK at the talk page of the RfC, because you suggested that I would consider his remarks and act on them (insofar as able).
Cheers, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 23:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you a lot for your help with the attribution etc. Judging from your last comment, my arguments as to the specifics of the need for RS didn't particularly convinced you. As for enthusiasm, ... WillNess ( talk) 09:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC) bunch of inappropriate stuff removed. Sorry about that. WillNess ( talk) 21:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I reverted your category specialization at Shannon–Hartley theorem because I couldn't think of anything discrete about it. Bandwidth, noise, information, continuous-time signals, all continuous stuff. What do you think? Dicklyon ( talk) 22:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank-you for the comments here. It's not the first time I've seen comments like that, but you put things much better than I could have done. One thing I have been doing is trying to work out a better way to put things, and "distancing prose from the source material" looks good to me. For the record, I was at pains to avoid saying 'plagiarism', as that was most certainly not what I was trying to say (for one thing, discussion would be needed before coming to any conclusions, though discussing first is a concept alien to some).
If you look at the FAC (I've finished there now, so I think it is OK to point to it), this all started from my post at 22:12, 21 October 2011, where I said "I also have some figures on word counts and (now I've been taking a closer look) some nascent concerns about similarities in wording and structure between this article and [one of the sources]. Would you be willing to discuss that on the article talk page rather than here?" The nominator responded by opening a section on the article talk page with results from their use of a duplication detector tool, which I was actually a bit taken aback by, but I thought 'fair enough, I'll point out examples for discussion', and then spent the next hour or so pulling together the examples I posted.
When posting those examples, I edit conflicted with the 00:33, 22 October 2011 post and after reloading the page and posting those examples at 01:11, I posted a reply at 01:15 to the post I'd edit conflicted with. It was actually in the 00:33 post that the terms 'close paraphrasing' and 'plagarism' (sic) were used for the first time (by the nominator, not me). With hindsight, I should have said something then, making clearer that (as I said in my 01:11 post) that my view was that 'the wording and also the sentence structure of this article does need to move away from that used by [the source]'. This wasn't intended to be an oblique reference, but rather a way of broaching the subject in a non-inflammatory fashion.
What I didn't expect was the 'call a spade a spade and stop pussy-footing around and say what you mean' (I'm paraphrasing there) response from Malleus (though he did have a point). What I've learnt from this is that no matter how you raise a subject like this, some people will get offended, and that it may be better to post just a single example first and let discussion evolve from there (rather than post a whole lot of examples). Anyway, sorry for posting such a long account, but I needed to get that off my chest. I also didn't want to post at Malleus's talk page again, but it would be good if he and others saw this at some point. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the stroopwaffles. The virtual ones are so great because they are of course sugar free. Things are stressed in real life at the moment - I work for an English local authority, and we are shedding about 1/3 of our staff, and there's lots of stuff around that, and last week was a bit of a nightmare. I edit Wikipedia to get away from that, but if you think it's spilling over, perhaps I ought to back off a bit and stick to rescuing genuine articles from the clutches of new page patrollers who don't understand what A7 actually says.-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
[3] Sadly. Just thought you might like to be aware. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 15:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
And so it is. Let us enjoy all that is good about Wikipedia. Geometry guy 00:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I've requested community reassessments for Warcraft II and Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares. -- Philcha ( talk) 15:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi - please stop posting at my talkpage - I have deleted a couple already, your posts don't seems beneficial to constructive discussion - thanks - Off2riorob ( talk) 23:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Geometry guy, you have a reply at my talk. RFA Guy ( talk) 17:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Geometry guy, I do not want any problems. If there is anything I can apologize for, I do now. RFA Guy ( talk) 21:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi -- do you have a minute to take a look at a template for me? I was trying to collapse the huge navbox at the bottom of Missouri Democratic Party, but can't seem to make it work. Am I doing something dumb, or is this actually broken? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)