User talk:Geometry guy: Difference between revisions

Welcome to my (rather minimalist) user and user talk page: please leave comments, questions, complaints, or just general chat below. I can't promise to reply, but if I do I will reply here: if I take a while I will drop a note on your talk page. Please provide direct links to issues you raise. I like to help out and have experience with templates, but my wikitime is limited. I have access to admin tools, but I don't use them to deal with vandalism or editor conduct.

Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

"Official" abbreviations of my username include G'guy and G-guy. I promise I will only be mildly irritated by other approximations :-)

1000	This user has made almost 1000 deleted contributions to Wikipedia.

I'm concerned that this will languish at GAR because it's an article on a subject that many reviewers may not feel confident to pass a second opinion on.

Do you think there's any point in keeping the review open? Not sure I do. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been closing the majority of GARs these days, largely because they would languish otherwise, so I would prefer not to have to reply directly on an individual case. It would be very easy to close this one anytime as "no action" if you were happy (as GAR nominator) for it to be closed with a view to renomination at GAN. However, there may be grounds for listing the article as GA now, but even if not the GAR may help to place the article in context and establish some consensus. Philcha has made a much valued new contribution to GAN, and I've been impressed by the acknowledgments on both sides of helpful remarks and fair points, which have improved the article, even in the context of disagreement. Geometry guy 23:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If no second opinions are offered over the next four or five days then I'll close the review myself, and renominate at GAN. No reason to clog up GAR unnecessarily. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'd be "happy" with that outcome. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get upset whichever way the GAR goes, just do whatever you think is right. Also there's no personal problem between Malleus and me, we've been having the occasional joke about other things while this has been going on. --Philcha (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware that there is great mutual respect between you both. The GAR is heading for list now, and without further comments, that would be a reasonable conclusion later this week. There's a chance that Majoreditor, Yobmod, or some other frequent GAR contributors will chip in. But if you say "Yeah, I'm not happy with the emphasis, but maybe it is okay for GA anyway", then it could be closed tomorrow. That was my implicit question. I will, of course, always do what I think is right :-) Geometry guy 22:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy with the emphasis, but maybe it is okay for GA anyway - that's a fair summary. When are you going to bring peace to the Middle East? --Philcha (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Regarding the Middle East, Barack is on the line right now. I'll see what I can do :-) Geometry guy 00:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your efforts have led to several improvements to the article Philcha! Geometry guy 01:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have, and I'm happy to admit that. In the end I think it was just a disagreement about the emphasis of the article. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← Thanks for putting me out of my misery.[1] Two Manchester computers down now, only four more to go before I have to decide whether I'm brave enough to take any of them to FAC. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am at a loss for how to improve the article as it stands. Recently my edits have mainly been focusing on minor copyediting, and at this point I feel as though it's time to jump the cliff and hope for the best. I was advised by my teacher (JimmyButler to wait until my diagram images have passed OTRS verification. At that point, would you support a move for FA? Kind regards, Food_Puma 00:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good. When you go for FAC you will discover lots of things to improve! I'm watchlisting, and will help if I can. Geometry guy 20:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butting in. If this was my article I'd go for FAC now, on the basis that the OTRS thing is in hand and FAC isn't a quick process anyway. If the only objection raised is that a couple of your images are waiting for OTRS approval, then it won't be failed just for that. Added to which you'd be very lucky if that is the only objection raised. Whatever the outcome though, the process will undoubtedly improve the article, so I say again go for it, and let the Devil take the hindmost! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuorum (talk • contribs) 18:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too Technical? Food_Puma 18:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a matter of opinion, not fact, which is why you now need those extra eyes at FAC. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nervous! Haha. I am scared of getting shut down, but I suppose its time. Gah! Food_Puma 19:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment on the talk page and the now-imminent FAC :-) Geometry guy 19:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had begun reviewing Scientology in Germany when a single purpose account showed up with a long post on Talk:Scientology in Germany/GA1 and then made several fundamental changes to the article. I undid his changes, asking for talk page discussion first, but he immediately reverted to his version. How do I handle this? (It apparently has to do with a POV controversy over Scientology.) —Mattisse (Talk) 16:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voxpopulis (talk · contribs) has been warned on its talk page about the reversion and the uncivil edit summary. Since all Scientology articles are on Probation, you were right to enlist someone else's assistance on reversions. It's often a 1RR instead of 3RR. I'm watching the article, and Geometry Guy's assistance would also be helpful. --Moni3 (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The post on the GA review page appears to have been an accident which the editor has undone. There are now comments on the talk page. If he/she hadn't done that, then you (Mattisse) could have moved the comments from the review page to article talk.

I think your revert to the article may have been a bit hasty: first, in article space, you should judge the edit not the editor (don't say "single purpose account" in an edit summary); second, it is usually best when reviewing GAs to let the content experts handle changes to the article (the new material appears to be sourced and not manifestly disruptive). In this case Jayen may agree, partially agree, largely disagree or revert the changes, followed by talk page discussion.

Thanks, however, to Moni for stepping in and pointing out that the article is on probation. The editor clearly has prior WP editing experience, so should understand the necessity to be ultra-civil henceforth. It may be necessary to investigate e.g. if there is a breach of WP:SOCK here. However, assuming good faith is the best starting point. In particular, I didn't find the edit summary particularly incivil.

I'll keep an eye on the article and the review as well. Geometry guy 17:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the advice. I realized afterward that I was overly hasty and had become involved in a way that I should not have. I will do as you suggest and let it be for the time being. I was just quite taken by surprise, as the long interview about Hollywood celebrities had nothing to do with the article and the link given was not to a reliable source. Thanks! I have cooled down. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article editor Jayen does not agree with the changes he has found and is wondering what to do. He feels that the new user's edit " seems less like a content dispute and more like disruptive editing by a sock". He is listing his disagreements on the article talk page. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply there was spot on. Just keep editing to improve the article. Note that there is currently a fresh Scientology RfArb going on. Geometry guy 20:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I've now read the article, some source material, and some of the RfArb and other onwiki background.

Voxpopulis has a point. One of my NPOV tests for articles on controversial topics is to see how easy it is to guess on which side of the controversy the sympathies of the main editors lie. In this case, it was very easy! Ironically, one of the main sources (Schoen) is about how framing the facts can influence their interpretation. This article does that extensively, for instance in its approach to court rulings according to their outcome. Cherry picking from sources, omitting relevant information and sentence structure (including misuse of words to avoid) add to the bias. The lead is even more selective and does not summarize the article. I may comment further on the review or talk page, particularly if you would find that helpful.

You've picked a tough one to review here! This is a case where it is probably necessary to read as much of the source material as you can before coming to a conclusion. Geometry guy 18:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that the article can either be about "framing" and how Hollywood celebrities influence the American political process in general, a la the Stephen Kent article, or it can attempt to describe whatever the legal situation in Germany is regarding the Scientologists. If it is about the former, then it should place the Scientologists and Germany issue in context of a much wider problem of celebrities influencing a variety of things, like views on global warming, voting for Obama, body image, you name it. To Americans, who are the group most affect by undue influence of celebrities on the American political process, their influence on the American government regarding Scientology and Germany is among the least important. As Kent says, "As is common in other instances of celebrities' political involvement, Scientology's celebrities have contributed to the trivialization of serious issues that confront the international community." —Mattisse (Talk) 21:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I didn't refer to Hollywood celebrities or Kent anywhere in my comment.

The article is about Scientology in Germany, so it needs to illuminate readers about the nature of Scientology as it is practised in Germany and the response of the German government. Why is Scientology so keen to be recognised as a religion? Why is Germany instinctively hostile to it? There are plenty of secondary sources with analysis of these and other questions from different viewpoints. Geometry guy 21:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was reflecting the discussion on the talk page. Sorry, I thought you had read it. I am hoping they will get away from navel gazing over the "American" view, framing, whatever. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I have read the talk page. That is of minor importance to a GA review. It is the quality of the article that matters, and that is what I was addressing in my comment. Geometry guy 23:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would rather take over the review? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't. That wouldn't be good practice, unless you feel unable to complete your review for some reason. You asked for my advice and I have been giving the best advice I can. I haven't even commented on the article talk page. I have offered to add my assessment of the NPOV of the article, but have not yet done so. This is a difficult article, and the pass/fail decision is yours alone. I'm offering support if you want it, but can withdraw if you don't. Geometry guy 23:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for advice on the article reversion by a single purpose account, and I truly appreciate the advice you gave on that issue. Thanks to you and Moni3, it is not a problem at the moment and article editors are working out their issues. I did not ask for your NPOV assessment of the article. You gave your opinion unsolicited. I gave a response which you criticized. So, are you insisting? This is extremely unpleasant for me. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have asked for my advice on many things recently, Mattisse, so I have assumed that you valued my opinion. I am insisting on nothing and am surprised you find anything unpleasant about anything I have said, because my every comment has been made with the best interests of Wikipedia and your contributions to it in mind. I have not criticized any response by you. I simply asked questions that I believe the article needs to address. This was not in disagreement with anything you have said, only my view on how to improve the article. However, if you wish to disagree with me, I am fine with that. I do not consider and have never considered disagreement to be any form of personal criticism. Geometry guy 00:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, am I free to have my own views or do I have to follow your POV as expressed above? I did not ask for you to give it. I disagree with your version of what is in "the best interests of Wikipedia". Do that rule me out? Does that mean I should not continue reviewing GAs? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep doing this Mattisse? Does it make you feel better in some way to fall out with anyone who makes an effort to help you? Disagreement is healthy. Petulance is not. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your intrusions on to everywhere I post are always dispiriting and a definite minus to being on Wikipedia, Malleus. I will dewatch this page. I don't need anymore discouraging comments from you. I do not seek ugliness. I will not review GAs anymore. You may review any GAs I have done, or the few I have left to do and delist as you please. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have far better things to do with my time than to review your GAs, as I have never made any secret of the fact that I believe you to be amongst the best of GA reviewers. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

at: Talk:Michael_Atiyah#Working_on_the_article_again. Your feedback will be great. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry that I cannot stick it out at GA and work with you. I think we could work it out. I was just shocked at your POV and could not adjust quickly. If I could post on your page, and you and I could converse, it would be good. But unfortunately, I am tired of the editors that feel they can intrude on my postings with their own negativity. You may feel that I am over sensitive, but I am so sick of the ugliness. It is not worth it to me right now to continue with GA. I am very sorry and it is not your fault. I am not going to watch you page as I just don't want to know what others are saying. Again, I am sorry. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to apologize Mattisse. You are the one that is suffering from your reactions, not me. I have not expressed a point of view (in the Wikipedia sense - I have no opinion on Scientology), only observed a bias in an article. WP:NPOV is one of Wikipedia's most important and beautiful policies. It is one of the main reasons for Wikipedia's success and one of the main reasons there isn't even more ugliness than what you see. Everyone gets a say. Every significant point of view gets represented fairly and without bias. And then we let each reader decide their own point of view.

I hope I can still be of some help to you, but I cannot control what happens on my talk page while I am offline. If you prefer, you can use talkback to ask for my input and keep the thread on your talk page. Alternatively you can seek advice elsewhere. Working with me (by asking my advice) and contributing to GA (by reviewing articles) are entirely separate matters. There's no reason to stop the latter when you no longer find the former helpful. I wish you the best of luck with your contributions. Geometry guy 10:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have replied to your comment on my talk page. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn from the GAN. You have effectively taken over. It is all yours. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to slow down a bit, Mattisse, for your own good. Geometry guy 23:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to be free of this. This is why I was upset before. I could see this coming as you clearly have an investment in this article. I will not operate under these conditions I will not review any more GANs. You have the Scientology article. I have withdrawn. It is yours to do with what you want. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have a point of view. You expressed it above. It is not neutral, although you seem to think it is, and therefore you have carte blanche to interfere. Since you have greater power, and you wish to conduct the GAN in a way that I do not like, that is antithetical to my way of doing things, then I have no choice. I resent it but there is nothing I can do except refuse to associate myself with it. It is very unfortunate but then, GAN has become an unpleasant experience between you and Malleus, so it belongs to you guys. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no investment in the article at all. I investigated these issues to establish whether the alternative account concerned was acting disruptively or not. On reading the article, I saw words to avoid, leading sentence structure, a failure to mention tax issues, and numerous other problems. Such issues are worthy of comment. I can't do anything with the article: only consensus can decide, and by withdrawing, you are making it more difficult to establish consensus. Again "interfere" - what does that mean?

Meanwhile your perception of a GAN conspiracy bears no resemblence to reality. Malleus and I have at times been at loggerheads. But you must do as you think best. Geometry guy 00:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see you and Malleus as a conspiracy, only in that you are both good at playing the game, and with each other. I don't think you have to portray me as stupid just because I was hurt. I trusted you more. Because I had a high opinion of you, I am disillusioned. I realize there is no place for me here at Wikipedia. The conspiracy, such that exists, is that contributors like me are not valued. That is all. I know you do not care that I will no longer contribute to GAN. I do think that Wikipedia as a whole looses, not because I will not contribute, but because thousands like me are drive away from Wikipedia, while the controlling group grows stronger and more entrenched. I think that you have an investment because I believe that you value my contributions enough that you would not interfere with the GAN process for no reason. I thought you valued me to that degree. I believe that you would have trusted me to do my job if you were disinterested. But because you had a strong point of view, you could not leave it to me and my way of working with editors. My way of working with editors was not good enough; you had to take over because you wanted to ensure your point of view dominated. That is why I am so sad. But it is reality. There is a certain meanness and a mentality that has become the normal here that I cannot handle. It was my mistake to expect anything different from you. My mistake definitely. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what the game is, never mind its rules. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have had two GA reviews with you, Mattisse; the first one was one of the most inspiring experiences I've had in Wikipedia – not because the article passed eventually, but because I realised how much room for improvement I had as an editor. I am fairly certain I am not alone in having had such an experience, and there is plenty of evidence that you are valued by many people.

To make a more general comment on the situation that developed here – as the main editor of the article concerned, I obviously didn't mind Geometry guy weighing in on the talk page. Many people of all sorts of points of view are bound to pass through that talk page sooner or later. However, that is a different issue from the question of how you guys, as GA reviewers, can best cooperate, which is what most of the kB above seem to be about. I think it stands to reason that if GA reviewers approach each other for advice on a procedural matter, it will help mutual trust, morale and professionalism among GA reviewers if they leave any content or other concerns to the reviewer already in place, or express any concerns they may have in private, on a user talk page, letting the reviewer ponder them and do with them as they see fit.

There are many parallels to this in real life. Think of the difficulties involved in taking on a friend as an employee. Mixed roles, often both relationships go awry, the professional one and the personal one. Or in professional contexts, if I ask a colleague for advice about a job I have done, I will not appreciate it if he calls my client and tells them that he thinks I give them substandard service. If I discuss my concerns about being forced to sell my house with my accountant, I will not appreciate it if that accountant then approaches my estate agent to put in an offer on my house. In any relationships requiring trust, it is best to restrict the interaction to a single dimension, to make that trust grow. Many professional services have strict guidelines on such matters, and for good reasons.

I am just submitting this as food for thought, because I think we are all agreed that Mattisse has been doing a sterling job around here, and it's not good to lose such people, or cause them heartbreak.

As for the article, I have made some changes, and would be happy to receive feedback on them. GA or not, I would really like to get the article sorted (and re-submit it in due course). Cheers, Jayen466 21:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly one side of the coin. Perhaps the other side though is how many reviewers is Mattisse trying to chase off, and why? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]