User talk:Geometry guy/Archive 10

GA silliness

What is going on with Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Preity Zinta/1? Failing an article that is well prepared for FAC because it doesn't use "western sources"? This one-person system has issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Really Sandy, jumping around talking about issues, silliness and capriciousness here and elsewhere does not help the article at all. The article has not been failed by GA: it was nominated; the editor who offered to review it didn't think it met the criteria; others disagreed and so a GAR was initiated. This GAR has only been going for 7 days: contested GARs typically take 2 weeks or more. Do you close FACs any faster than that?

I have my eye on the discussion, and it looks to me like it is heading towards listing the article as GA. I didn't comment so far because in my experience it is much better to give the involved parties a chance to dissipate some of the heat of the disagreement before uninvolved parties add their comments. I hope this to-and-fro has now passed and that your contribution won't reheat it. Please be patient. Geometry guy 10:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured article dispatch workshop

I set up a basic shell (and archives) for coordinating the weekly dispatch at Wikipedia:Featured article dispatch workshop. The 25th is approaching! Are you interested in starting something on peer review? If not, Marskell might do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion above with Marskell. Geometry guy 10:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review of multiple articles

I pondered this briefly during the archive shuffle, but now I want to launch one peer review for the saxophone series (Contrabass saxophone, Bass saxophone , Baritone saxophone, Tenor saxophone, Alto saxophone, Soprano saxophone, Sopranino saxophone, to gauge how people think they should relate to the main article saxophone (no there's no featured topic in this, honest!). This is not unheard of, so perhaps we should prescribe a system to use so that we don't allow our nice shiny archives to get screwed up. Should we say to launch a PR in a normal way from one of the articles, then link to that PR from the others? Or have a totally different location for multiple peer reviews? Where should it go: Wikipedia:Peer review/alto saxophone/archive1, with the others linking to it? Wikipedia:Peer review/saxophone articles/archive1? Perhaps even Wikipedia:Peer review/Multiple/saxophones?? What do you think? Happy‑melon 13:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

<bump> :D Happy‑melon 16:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is rare enough that we don't need a special location. I would go for Wikipedia:Peer review/Alto saxophone/archive1 with the other article talk pages linking to it, either directly, or via redirects at the other /archive1 pages. Geometry guy 18:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've done that at. Will I catastrophically break anything if I replace the {{Peer review/header}} templates? Happy‑melon 20:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to keep one of them, with a month, in order to receive a link to a semi-automated peer review if one happens. I've removed the month from the rest to avoid multiple notices. The rest could be sorted alphabetically rather than by pitch, or removed, as you prefer. Geometry guy 20:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Dante's Cove

I do have it on my watchlist; however, the AGR discussion edit got kind of hidden between two other edits from the same nominator. The GAR process should probably be updated to include notification to the GA nominator. Otto4711 (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you missed it. I've added the article to my watchlist for a while too. If I get time, I will see if I can help. Geometry guy 00:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Station model

Can you take another look at the article, to see if there are any additional issues standing in its way of making GA? Thanks for all the help you've provided so far. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't yet, sorry. Can you ping me again? Geometry guy 22:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

MOS project

Hi, yes, I'll support, but where is it? Can't find it, and I have very limited time until 7 March. Tony (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style#Participants. Geometry guy 18:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

All roads...

Hmm, so my digging around the wiki for bot building information has lead me right back where I started—just worked out that your the wizard behind the curtain-of-automation at wp:pr! So, seeing as you've done this before, how would you suggest I (we?) proceed in GA-process automation? --jwanders^Talk 17:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It was a joint effort with Carl, with important input from several others, e.g. Gimmetrow and Happy-melon. Happy-melon has expressed a strong interest in GA automation. I've made some tentative steps already, but I repeatedly get put off taking it forward when I am reminded of the affection some GA regulars have for the huge bureaucracy that GA has become. It is a bit of a vicious circle, I think: GA attracts those who like it, and that makes reform difficult.

Anyway, so far I restructured the hierarchy at GAN to match the top two levels at GA. I got rid of "LONG" (that took 4 months!). I have also created a template {{GA/Subtopic}} which parses a parameter to give a subtopic name in the same way that {{GA/Topic}} provides a topic name. The top two levels of the hierarchy should now be stable, and are closely tied in with WP1.0 (see WP:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Hierarchy).

How to proceed? GAN could and probably should be automated in the same way as PR. That is, the non-static information on the main GAN page would be automatically generated by a bot from categories. I was going to use VeblenBot's category listing for this, but that would mean having a category for each possible combination of subtopic (there are 33) and state (currently 4: nominated, on review, on hold, second opinion). It would be much better to have only 33+4=37 categories and let the bot do the category intersection. The categories could be populated by a single talk page template with a simple name and two parameters e.g., {{GAN|status|subtopic=name}}: this is a bit like your recent suggestion for a single GAN page "on review" template.

Potential issues.

• GAN is high traffic, so the bot generated information would need to be updated at least every half hour, 24/7. Not many users are willing or able to maintain such a bot. Are you up for it?
• Automation will make WP:GAN itself essentially static on watchlists (check the edit history of WP:PR), which would be a big culture change.
• This would break User:StatisticianBot, which generates WP:GAN/R, so the bot would have to take over this role, assuming we want to preserve it (and I do, because that is what I use to produce graphs of the backlog).

GA. However, those are all pretty minor issues compared to the challenge of automating WP:GA, which may require a completely different approach. There are probably too many sections here to populate them from categories. The reviewer who passes a GA, or the archivist who closes a GAR as "List", have to indicate where on the page a GA will go. The current way they do this (and it may be the best way) is actually to put it there! An alternative is to specify the location as a parameter in an article talk page template. In either case, a bot is going to have to parse and actively edit the GA page (something which GimmeBot already does), which is much more work that reading categories and generating lists. I have several ideas, but I won't throw them at you just yet, as none of them are ideal. There are robustness issues too: we don't want to make it too easy for editors to sneak articles into GA without a review! I leave this as food for thought... Geometry guy 19:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if and incremental approach would work best? That is, take a single small step in the current GA process, automate it exactly as is, and slowly build up towards complete automation (where by complete I of course mean only the aspects that don't need human judgemet). I think it would be easier to convince regular reviewers to change the system once an automated system is established. But this would probably involve more than just category filling, so I'm probably being over-ambitious. Regarding the running such a bot, I'm not sure what it entails. Is in as simple as leaving a machine on 24/7 with a process running every half-hour? That I could conceivably achieve. Alternatively, is there any area on the Wikimedia servers that bots can be hosted?--jwanders^Talk 22:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. As for running such a bot, yes, the main issue is leaving a machine on 24/7, which most of us do these days, but you also have to check regularly that the bot is behaving. From what I have heard, I don't recommend hosting any of your code on servers, but others more experienced than me (i.e., everyone) will be able to provide better advice. Geometry guy 22:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor PR quirk

With the new PR system, I noticed that the "follow this link" from the starting PR template doesn't switch to "a request" right away. It might be good to add a "step 4" with a purge link so it gets updated. So, do you want to compare experiences with portal PR? I was wondering if Carl has portal PR tracking already set up somewhere. Gimmetrow 01:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this has also been pointed out at WT:PR. It seems fussy to ask nominators to purge their article talk page: maybe a warning could be added to the "Follow this link" version of the template, with a link to purge? I also thought about making the "Article talk" link on the peer review page go via purge, with some encouragement in the instructions to follow it. What do you do at PPR re this issue?

As for comparing notes, yes, good idea. I looked at PPR shortly after I suggested this some time ago. "Archiving from the get-go" was harder at PR, because the PR page is automated, so an extra template is needed to add the peer review page to a category. Monthly archive pages are now automated too. I also made one small addition to your idea: I think it is good to provide an error message when there are too many pre-existing archives. At PPR, four archive pages is pretty unlikely, but at PR it isn't!

Carl isn't tracking portal PRs yet, but if you want this feature, you just have to put all current portal PRs in a category, and ask Carl to list the category using VeblenBot. See Template:CF for info on how you can use VeblenBot's lists. Geometry guy 20:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You can generate a purge link specific to the talk page and put it somewhere with an encouragment to "click here to return to talk page". The template could easily be expanded to handle more PR archives. I only did 4 to show the concept. My thought was actually to make the subpages /try1, /try2 and so forth, so that none of the pre-existing pages would be moved. Guess that didn't work out. Gimmetrow 05:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, {{PR}} is set to handle 5 archives, and produce an error message after that. We can extend it if needed: the error message helps to detect the need. I thought about leaving a purge link back to the talk page, but the link then remains after the purge is done. So I opted instead to put the purge link in the "Follow this link" version of the template, so that it disappears once the talk page is purged.

I agree with your /try1, /try2 thought: indeed for GAR I used the even simpler /1, /2, convention, but we're stuck with /archiveN at PR now.

Are you interested in doing something like this with FAC? Automating the main FAC page is now a triviality. Would it be useful? Geometry guy 19:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's get all the kinks worked out at PR/PPR. I'm trying to figure out a good system for closing these which involves updating the talk pages, and can handle moved pages. Gimmetrow 22:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Another little issue: [1] Is this how a GAR pass is currently handled? Gimmetrow 05:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a mechanism specific to GA Sweeps, which is a group of editors who want to check old GAs are up-to-scratch. If they are, then they just update the oldid to indicate that the article has been checked. I know that this doesn't fit well with the article history philosophy, and I hope this shortcut is only used for articles without an AH template. Geometry guy 19:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

But theoretically, every GA will eventually become FA. And I'm slowly converting GA templates, so I run into these. Gimmetrow 22:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oozing onwards and oodling away ;)

Hi G-guy! :)

How have you been? I get the impression that you've been busy with something involving peer review, although I haven't looked into it; p'raps you could explain it to me sometime? :)

I've been inching and oozing forward with the problem of Apollonius, although I reckon much more needs to be done. :P I'm also trying to gradually improve a few other articles, most recently sundial (which has a nice connection to the conic sections and, thus, Apollonius of Perga), Usher syndrome and lactoylglutathione lyase, which was random fun but fascinating. :)

I'm not sure if I told you, but I'm leaving soon to visit my sister and help her to prepare for her wedding, which is happening this July? (I should get some really nice shoes for a change! ;) I'll be away for a while, but if you had any suggestions for any of those articles, most especially the problem of Apollonius, I'd be very grateful. I'm toying with the idea of trying to raise it to FA, since mathematics seems to need more FA's, from what I read in the Signpost. Hoping that you're happy and healthy and hale, Willow (talk) 10:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes: it started in October, and since then I have been trying to automate some of the routine at WP:PR. Most of it is now automated, but archiving is still only partially automated. The best way to learn about it is to submit an article for peer review. I hope you have a lovely break, and return refreshed to add your special touch in many places. Geometry guy 21:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

New Month PR question

Hi Geometry guy, I have made the new directory for semi-automated peer reviews at Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/March 2008 but wanted to check in case anything else needed to be done to make the switch to the new month. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to mention this: the new page is fine, but there are a couple of side issues. First, if want to add SAPRs to any more peer reviews requested in February, then I recommend doing it now, in the February SAPR page. Otherwise, you will have to change the month in the {{PR/header}} template on the peer review page for the article so that the notice works. Second, I made a mistake in switching from "onlyinclude" to "noinclude", and would prefer to switch back, if you agree. If so, I will edit the script and Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/March 2008: I have to do this after all additions to the February SAPR page are done and before any additions to the March SAPR page begin. Geometry guy 20:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I just ran 2 new SAPRs as AZPR (including Harry and the Potters discography for the third time, sigh), if there are any others in the next 3 hours I will just put them in March. I trust your judgment on switching the "onlyinclude" to "noinclude".

Finally, is there any way a bot could archive the old PR requests? I am OK doing it, but it is about 30 minutes a day, so if there would be a way a bot could do it, that would be helpful. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I just need a clean break: it will probably be tomorrow am (UTC), so anything in the next 3 hours can be put under February; then don't do any March SAPRs until I make the fix. As for bot archiving, yes, it could be done: Gimmetrow is the expert on this kind of thing, and I hope he and I will coordinate our activities more in the future. In response to your previous concerns, I've created WP:Peer reviews by date, but the dates are not yet fixed for some of the articles. Geometry guy 21:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is now done, so please try out a March SAPR on a March request. The transition to the March archive appears to have gone very smoothly. Have you noticed any problems? Geometry guy 10:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update

This is a form message being sent out to all of the GA sweeps reviewers. Thank you for all of your dedicated work in the difficult and time-consuming task of ensuring the quality of articles within the GA project. Many reviewers have taken time out of reviewing articles at WP:GAN (this may be one factor in the expansion of the backlog), writing articles, and probably getting some sleep! I have sent this message out to update you on our current progress and to remind you to please keep up with completing your reviews and updating GARs/holds. As of March 1, 2008, we have swept 20% of the 2,808 GAs we started with. At our current progress, all of the articles will be assessed in just under three years (based on when we started). If we want to complete the sweeps sooner, we need to continue reviewing at a higher rate (consider doing one or two more reviews a week or whatever you feel comfortable with) and inviting new, experienced reviewers. If you are taking a break, focusing on GAN, writing your own GAs, or are already reviewing articles like crazy, I still want to thank you for all of your hard work and hope you are pleased about our current progress. Keep up the good work and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(too lazy to make 2 entries, so decided to merge 2 similar topics into one post) Thanks for writing an article for GA newsletter, couldn't do it without you =) And if you have any suitable candidates for the sweep team, please invite them in. We have seen some significant progress from new sweep team members. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

For next month, would you mind doing an article on the so-called "bold delist"? I think 90% of the editors either don't know, or misunderstood this process which leads to a lot of debate at GAR (especially this week) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Split infinitive

Okay, moved to User:Dank55/Essays, and I'm very happy you liked it. Split infinitives are like water these days in opinion magazines, but you're right, that one needed to go. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I'm all in favour of splitting an infinitive with an adverb from time to time, but that was a bit much :-) Geometry guy 16:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Peer_review categorization

(Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Portal:Peer_review&curid=15969573&diff=195095188&oldid=194910757)

I just noticed that you fixed a categorization issue. I thought you might want to know that I created that portal recently using {{subst:box portal skeleton}}, and I have not modified the part you edited. So, if there is an issue with the way it formats the category, it's more than likely in the box portal skeleton itself. You might want to have a look at that directly.

Cheers! --Msanford (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

GAN Review

Hi GGuy, I'm having trouble knowing how best to deal with the response from a GA review I did on Nader Shah. The main article contributor was not pleased by my review, almost taking his comments to the level of personal attack. I've tried to diffuse the situation, but in the end have had to just point the editor along to GAR. I hate "passing the buck", but think it was probably the best course of action here. Don't think nothing you need to do at this point, but would you mind skimming through the talk page discussion and seeing if there's anything I could have done better for next time? Thanks --jwanders^Talk 00:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. Forgot to mention: a bit further up that same talk page, it looks like another editor did a review for the same nomination. After received a similar response, he got fed up, erased that review and left the nomination for someone else.--jwanders^Talk 01:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You did fine: reviewing gets hostile reactions sometimes. A couple of tips. As I think you've realised, trying to do a large number of GA reviews in a short time doesn't really work. Secondly, going straight in with a section headed "Failed GA" sets up potential confrontation. If you want to do a straight fail, try something like "Unsuccessful GA nomination", or even simply "GAN review". However, why not leave a review with pass/fail open to see if there is any response? If the editors start falling over backwards to fix issues, you can put it on hold. If not, you can switch to fail. Geometry guy 10:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting conversation...--Folantin (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you find it interesting: note it is not taking place on IRC! I'm sorry you have a negative impression of GA: it is a process which tends to work out in the end, but the journey to get there can be a bit haphazard sometimes: quality control is mainly built in through multiple editors listing and delisting, with GAR available to arbitrate in the case of disagreement or borderline cases. Individual reviews can be very variable in quality, but the good articles WikiProject tries to disseminate good practice. Geometry guy 18:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

...and fails. --Folantin (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I am stupid, and don't understand. If you can leave a comment without ellipses, I might stand a better chance to respond to your comment. Geometry guy 21:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"The good articles WikiProject tries to disseminate good practice"...and fails. --Folantin (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I will pass that message on, thank you. Geometry guy 21:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the IRC reference was to this method of getting articles passed [2]. The big problem with GA is there's no quality control over the reviewers, so we have people diffusing the situation instead of defusing it. --Folantin (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe I was unaware of this story? Do you seriously believe I have not thought about in as much depth than you have? Do you seriously believe that this is endemic? Read up. Geometry guy 21:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The guy responsible for that incident is still one of your GA reviewers, as far as I can see. --Folantin (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The incident was unfortunate, but it was also misrepresented; in any case it was certainly not one of "my" reviewers. I had very little to do with GA at the time. Reviewers are independent and therefore unreliable; that's the whole point of the GA system. Do you have a problem with that? If so, then don't use GA. Geometry guy 21:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"Reviewers are independent". Funny, because a minute ago there was a "good articles WikiProject" trying to "disseminate good practice", which would suggest some kind of team effort, as would the existence of a GA Newsletter. "Reviewers are independent and therefore unreliable; that's the whole point of the GA system". The whole point of the GA system is to be unreliable? Now I'm beginning to understand...And yes, I do have a problem with that because I'm wondering in what possible way the GA badge benefits this encyclopaedia. "If so, then don't use GA". Well, I've been aware of GA and its failings for well over a year but I foolishly decided to help another editor who had more faith in the process - plus I thought it would be an interesting experiment. Just before he nominated it (in early January) I predicted exactly what would happen to another editor (i.e. it would be a lottery) and after two months of messing about I've been proved right. Nothing's changed and it's still as bad as ever, in spite of the clique that prides itself on "maintaining quality".--Folantin (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is too sad. Feel free to discourage use of the flawed violet that is GA. I hope some editors will still find it helpful, but if it withers into dust, so be it. Geometry guy 22:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"Feel free to discourage use of the flawed violet that is GA". OK, I'm going to start removing the GA badge from any articles I see. --Folantin (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You will be reverted. Please do not try to make a point. Geometry guy 22:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I knew you'd say that! But you've forgotten Ignore All Rules - unlike the average GA reviewer. Funnily enough, one of the ideas behind the "experiment" was to produce an article totally in line with Wikipedia policy and then watch it get failed by a GA reviewer (or two). --Folantin (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:MMM and reviews

Here's what I'm thinking: We can get them a peer review. We don't have to go through the old process. We have a lot of good reviewers on our team already. They aren't a problem. Also, when it comes to GA, we can dredge up a reviewer easy. We just get someone on the team who hasn't edited the article to do it. There's no reason they should sit and wait. Wrad (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Peer review may work best for articles which will capture interest beyond the FA Team. For GA, an uninvolved FA-Team member can step in if no one else does. Geometry guy 19:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just worried that if we're too optimistic about timelines, students will procrastinate until it's too late. Wrad (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree again, and was reassured a bit by Jbmurray's "kicking" post. Peer review takes at least two weeks, we should not promise fast GAs, and we have no control over the length of FACs. Geometry guy 19:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I just posted a timeline to give editors an idea of the realities... Wrad (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very good, but I don't think it is WP:MMM's goal to make all these articles FA, and that is rather ambitious for the FA Team too. I hope we can produce at least one FA by then, though! Also, I don't think that articles which are purely high B's on March 10 have much chance to be FAs by April 10. They need to be in an active GA or PR discussion to be FACs with a chance of success by April 10. There is a delicate balance here between encouraging the students and providing realistic expectations. I will follow your lead on this. Geometry guy 19:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should leave a note with the teacher first. Wrad (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me

I brought up in an article about toning down sex and violence on the main page and this administrator replied that books are boring and he would prefer this book about child abuse. I want to have a go at getting him de-admin-ed. Where would I bring that up? (go see Talk:Main page#Computer game article yesterday comment by J Milburn) ThisMunkey (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was away for the weekend. It seems events have moved on. If you have problems with an administrator's comments, you can start a thread at WP:AN/I, where good advice is usually available. Geometry guy 00:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Little help?

Umm, with no authorization, someone moved David Paterson to David A. Paterson (politician). I accidentally moved it to David A. Paterson. Can you sort out this mess by moving it back to David Paterson and deleting all the new pages that were created? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The article has been around since August 11, 2006 and no one has had a problem with its name until now. I think it should be moved to its original place at David Paterson. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be right, but I think you need to explain at greater length how the ambiguities will be resolved before I start deleting pages and their edit histories. Geometry guy 23:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

FA Team

Could you do the GA review for The President (novel)? I noticed you hadn't contributed to it at all, so you qualify. Wrad (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

PR Dispatch

Thanks for the heads up - I think that mentioning the new Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog which lists articles at least a week old that have had no new comments at all might be helpful. I have let the oldest ones go 17 days so far, but think I may archive them tomorrow (if they have no replies). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I also wondered about adding some sort of statistics of the number of articles that pass through PR each month and asking for interested readers of the Signpost to sign up as PR volunteers or help out with a review or two, especially from the ones with no review yet. Did you want me to add this to article itself or just want ideas to add?

I started yesterday giving some comments to reviews with none that I would have otherwise archived. I think I can do this if it is 2 or 3 a day, but there is a group of 7 in one day coming donw the pipeline - yikes. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

These are all good ideas. Please add them to the draft (they may be edited by myself and others). Geometry guy 00:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on with the Dispatch for the 17th, because the WP:SIGNPOST hasn't run the 10th yet ... I think Ral315 has the flu. Also, if anyone is doing PR stats, I'm still trying to replace the lost data (for the last 3 mos) on WP:FAS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I added something, including PR stats for Dec, Jan and Feb based on the number of semi-automated peer reviews run, to the draft article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think something should be added about your role in all the changes at PR. I will be bold and add something. Thanks for all you do here, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Saw you are now mentioned, so just updated the PR stats and add FLC. Looks good - thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Miguel Angel Asturias

GG, thanks for all the work you're putting in on this. I have to say I'm tired and frustrated that I'm finding half my time taken up with rooting out plagiarism... Oh well. This is how editors learn, I hope! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm a bit frustrated that new unformatted links to websites are being added to the notes. I can sort them out, of course, but I'm done for today! Happy editing, as they say! Geometry guy 00:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, some of that is no doubt me. Apologies. Though, as you say on the talk page, soon enough these references need to disappear altogether. I'm almost done for the day, too. Thanks again. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry: I was just trying to make it easier to spot the bad links and add more using the ref name="Bad source" ;-) I've consolidated the other ones now, I think. Geometry guy 00:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, history deletion at redirect David Paterson

Thanks for making it possible for an ordinary editor to move the article.
Don't you think it might be friendly to admit on your talk page/user page that you're an admin?
Yellowdesk (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, probably, but I'm one of the most low-key admins out there: it is not a badge for me! I'm quite curious as to why I was contacted above regarding this page move :-) Geometry guy 01:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Beats me. As far as I know you were visiting the page on your own and decided to help out and delete the history. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(I guess User:J.delanoy thinks well of you. :)|

GAC backlog elimination drive

After reading your graph and comments on Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Report#Graph, is it time to run another backlog elimination drive? Let's run it for 1 week, since last time we did 1 month and have all kinds of trouble at the end of the month when people just piling on reviews hastely just to get enough number for an award. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 08:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's worth a try. The problem with backlog elimination drives is the bounceback, as you can see from the graph: at the end of the drive, reviewers take a break, and nominators see an opportunity to nominate while the backlog is low, and suddenly we are back where we started. I would suggest trying a 2 week drive to cover the Easter period. The previous drives have been collected together under WP:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives. I suggest following the previous models. Geometry guy 00:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Crap, I forgot. No backlog elimination drive until Sweeps is complete. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Broken Peer Review

Hi G guy, there appears to be a broken peer review request for Komodo Dragon at "(Peer review added on Tuesday 4 March 2008, 21:38 UTC)" (between the requests for "Rwanda" and "Six Feet Under (band)" in the PR by date list), but I am not sure how to fix it. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Help for NPOV on Atheism

Geometry guy. I looked at GAR and FAR archives and you are one of the Wikipedians who best fight for Neutrality. Your help is needed at Atheism where the article sounds as an apology of Atheism and worse, it is a Featured Article! The editors are strongly against any change. They are propose a very minor compromise in the form of linking to Criticism to Atheism.

I told them the article on atheism "should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each," "in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." (NPOV)

The discussion place is here. Please help. Kleinbell (talk) 07:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have very little wikitime this week, but I've had a look at the article and the talk page. I think you've got off to a bad start as your approach comes across as confrontational in places, even though I am sure that was not your intention. I see your point about the article, but I also believe that many of the responses to your criticisms are valid. In particular, the subject of the article is about what atheism is. I'm less concerned about NPOV issues as comprehensiveness (one of the featured article criteria).

The difficulty is finding an editor with access to reliable sources and the time and willingness to contribute material which will bring the article into balance and make it more comprehensive. I can't do that, but will try to help in other ways. Geometry guy 11:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup. I was confrontational. Mea culpa really. I've just put in some better arguments though. The subject of the article is atheism yes but many other authors not just marx engles freud have written about it. Please take a look. Thanks. Kleinbell (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Miguel Ángel Asturias GA hold

Following up jbmurray's comments on the Mission 1 talk page, I'm rather concerned about the quality of the unsolicited GA review on Miguel Ángel Asturias. I know this article is on your watchlist - how do you think we should handle this? EyeSerene^talk 08:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC) (edit) I've also left a note with Karanacs. EyeSerene^talk 11:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have very little wikitime this week, but I suggest we let the GA process run its course. Geometry guy 11:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Two PR questions

The review for Amsoil is showing up, but has a red link for the PR itself. Also the peer review request for Greater Manchester is from an editor who just retired (Joshi) - it has no responses so far, do you think it would be OK to just archive it? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The first issue was fixed by DHMO (thanks!): for some reason the review was started on Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Amsoil/archive1. I've no idea how that happened. If you see it happening again, please let me know.

For the second issue, it's your call. I see no harm in leaving it up, and no harm in archiving it. Geometry guy 11:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I am trying very hard to make sure every PR request gets at least some response. I may leave a note on the Greater Manchester talk page - if there are other editors who want the PR I will leave it up. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review idea

Hi, I have made a proposal that no peer review request be archived without some response. To aid in this, there is a new list of PR requests at least one week old that have had no repsonses beyond a semi-automated peer review. This list is at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog.

There are just over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, so I figure if each of these volunteers reviewed just one or two PR requests without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog (as there have been 2 or 3 such unanswered requests a day on average).

If you would be able to help out with a review or two a month from the "no responses" backlog list that would be great (and much appreciated). Please discuss questions, comments, or ideas at the PR talk page and thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

citation question

You seem to be the go-to man for hvnb... I'd left a few messages on talk pages, but finally figured out for myself that this only workd with citation, not with "cite book," "cite journal" etc. So as I do so like those little wikilinks from the note to the references, I was thinking of converting some reference lists to citation.

But I got caught at the first hurdle, looking at The General in His Labyrinth, trying to do the reference for the book itself. How do you add a translator's name?

Heh, or is there any way that the folk who made hvnb can be persuaded to hack it to work with "cite book"?? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick change for Dispatch

Gguy, I have never been able to consistently locate this "Wikipedia 1.0 topic name" list. Instead of linking to Wikipedia 1.0 at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-17/Dispatches, can you change that link to go directly to that topic list, wherever it is? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Mario Vargas Llosa

Hi. I know you've been watching Mario Vargas Llosa for the FA-Team. This article has come on in leaps and bounds in the last week or so. The editors who have been working on it hope to submit it to GA Review very shortly. It would be great if you were able to give it the once-over. Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

PR archives complete

Sound the trumpets in Zion, and all that - after 25,401 edits, along with a few hundred from my own account, the PR archive restructure is finished!! So at the very reasonable rate of £0.05 per edit, that comes to a grand total of £1270.05 plus VAT. :D Happy‑melon 18:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Once the auditing of all 25401 edits is done, the cheque will be in the post :-) (Award on your talk page!) Geometry guy 22:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC) PS. Given the discusssion above, I'm worried that if you and OrangeMarlin ever meet in a thread your signatures might spontaneously annihilate and Wikipedia would lose two valuable contributors :-)

I got there first! He stole my idea! Lol. Thanks for the... er... original award!! I still have a load of log files to which might contain some false negatives, so there might be a few more out there I missed (I got bored of manually checking possible soft redirects so I just told it to dump anything questionable into a log and move on), but they'll be really short and largely useless (I think the heuristics I eventually decided on were less than five edits, less than five internal links, and less than 500 bytes).

Two things I did notice: I don't think we can place any reliability on the transcluded archives (Wikipedia:Peer review/August 2006 etc). It's when you notice that one review is transcluded into three separate archives that you realise no one bothered to update the links when they moved the page, so we've probably got loads of errors there. That's ok really though - no one looks at those pages anyway! And also, literally hundreds of reviews aren't noted on the article talk page: sometime, it might be a good exercise to go through and check that each archive has at least one backlink from an article talk page... this is our history, after all. That could tie in nicely with my {{ArticleHistory}} bot which has been languishing for god knows how long. Happy‑melon 13:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed these issues too, and maybe it wouldn't be so hard to check out the monthly archives too, as there are not so many PRs with more than one /archive page. We just need to know which ones do not have precisely one link from a monthly archive, and which PRs have chronological ordering problems. Do your logs have any helpful info here? Hopefully the list will be short enough now to fix by hand. Geometry guy 18:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:MelonBot/PR/redir contains all the redirects MelonBot altered. Most of these are PR subpages, probably created by people moving the review pages around. User:MelonBot/PR/skip is a list of all pages MelonBot didn't move. There's about 500 there, I'm afraid. I have no data about chronology, unfortunately. You could fix the transclusion archives just by looking through them and checking the timestamps of the review comments - if they're out, they're going to be way out. Happy‑melon 19:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Subarticle etc

Related to that I've tentatively proposed template:details and template:further be merged as well, though an admin will have to add the merge template. It's difficult because they are in such wide use, so I'm not sure what the response will be, but I think they are conceptually the same so would best be merged in the long run. It's either that or their functions are so vague as to render at least one of them useless. Richard001 (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think merging them both into main is too ambitious: better merge them into each other. They both refer to another article that provides further or more detailed information on the information in the section. They don't necessarily cover all of the information in the given section, which a main article should. Geometry guy 23:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Directory

I am trying to add all the projects which have been created since the directory was created, and it seemed reasonable to use the existing categorization. The one disadvantage that would be had with categorization, as I have found out much to my frustration, is that certain projects, particularly certain religious projects, and possibly others as well, will adamantly object to being called in any way "descendant" projects. The Judaism project, for whatever reason, comes to mind immediately here. I will however at least try to sort out the categories when I finish the draft directory, so that they perhaps resemble each other. No guarantees how long they'll stay that way, though, once I do so. John Carter (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind me editing your draft? I have had some experience harmonizing the use of the WP:1.0 hierarchy for release versions and for good articles: see WP:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Hierarchy. I have a couple of suggestions. First I think your draft directory is too fine/deep: two levels should be enough to obtain manageable lists of WikiProjects. Second, I can understand that some WikiProjects do not want to be regarded as "descendants" of other WikiProjects, but that is not the same as being organised in a hierarchy of categories or topics. If this distinction can be maintained, it might be possible to bring more WikiProjects into the fold. Good work, anyway! Geometry guy 22:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the draft directoy as you see fit, like anything else. I was trying to follow the existing model of the extant directory, and intended that a lot of the listings would in fact, ultimately, wind up being just links to a single, "regular" listing of each individual project, like with the current directory. But the bloody thing is becoming a royal pain in more ways than one, and I would welcome any help I could get. :) John Carter (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, will do! Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon... Geometry guy 22:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem editor

Hi Geometry Guy, I wonder if you would consider applying your considerable interpersonal skills (and, perhaps, some of your administrative authority) to the case of a mathematically knowledgeable but extremely obnoxious editor whom I have already encountered several times, and I am bound to encounter again? Can you, please, take a look at the talk page for Orbifold, where he manifested himself in his typical fashion yet again and let me know what you think. Thanks a million in advance! Arcfrk (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I won't be able to look at this until at least tomorrow, I'm afraid; probably Thursday is more realistic. Sorry not to be more help. Geometry guy 18:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll look forward to your response. It is not urgent, but it's a situation where I would appreciate your advice. Arcfrk (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Too late now. Just what I had been afraid of, the rabid dog has bit me again, and now I am beyond help. Arcfrk (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)