User talk:Geometry guy: Difference between revisions

Welcome to my (rather minimalist) talk page: please leave any 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 any issues you raise. I like to help out and I'm quite experienced with templates, but my wikitime is rather limited. I also 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

Firstly, sorry if my actions have annoyed you. This was not my intention. Hopefully I can address some of your concerns. I presented my proposals and started a discussion on them on 17th November. I did not change the template until three days later on 20th November and when it seemed the discussion was not going to attract any more comments. You chose not to take part in the discussion, or maybe you did not notice it; probably I should have drawn your attention to it as I knew you were one of the main people involved in assessing mathematics articles. Anyhow I think that joining the discussion and giving your thoughts would be more constructive than just reverting the changes. I believe there are advantages to converting the banner and to conforming slightly more with other WikiProjects - these are mentioned in the proposals. Best regards, MSGJ 19:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure your intentions are good but am grateful for the apology anyway.

I didn't notice the discussion until now: I am very busy IRL and am concentrating on other things onwiki. I noticed the discussion because of Talk:Locally connected space, where your version of the template placed the page into a redlinked category (I guess it was Category:Topology-field mathematics articles).

Your work is in the edit history, and can be reintroduced if there is consensus for it. The discussion so far has hardly generated enthusiasm for the change and your characterization of Bplus as a GA-Class anomaly is not likely to help in winning support. The icons are a nice idea, though. Best wishes, Geometry guy 20:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Bplus-Class is an anomaly. I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise as maths is the only project which uses it. Although I would recommend trying to standardise our classes as I think uniformity makes assessment clearer, I recognise that I am about the only person who thinks this or cares enough about it :) I still think it is wrong to categorise articles as GA unless they are good articles; this seems obvious. I was interested to read some of your thoughts about this on another page somewhere. (You have assessed 2000 maths articles? That's quite amazing.) Anyway I will not propose to convert the banner again unless/until it supports project-specific classes such as Bplus. Thank you for recognising that my intentions are good. I certainly did not mean to push things through without consensus; that is why I initiated the discussion. So I still feel your comment on "unilateral intervention" was a bit unfair. I look forward to working with you more in the future. Martin 16:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it was a bit unfair and I am happy to apologise, as you have so graciously done. Bplus was a compromise found at a time of intense hostility between the Maths and GA WikiProjects. Thankfully, GA has matured considerably in the last 18 months, and many members of the Maths WikiProject now have a more positive attitude towards GA, so this issue could certainly be revisited. My own view, as you probably know, is that GA-Class itself is an anomaly which causes many headaches for the GA WikiProject. I also look forward to working with you on issues like this. Geometry guy 19:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you are apart of the FA-team, I thought I would come to you for suggestions on how to improve my article. I believe it's cited quite well and it covers the topic with an adequate amount of information, however it's prose may not be of professional standard. If you could help me with this in any way: pointing out issues, editing in your free time - anything - I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you again for your help in attaining GA, there was quite a rejoice at the school! Cheers! Food_Puma 00:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing that Abian's paper was in fact referred to in locally connected space. I had entirely missed the section on applications of local connectedness, which must have been added somewhat recently (of course, it is not good that this section is buried somewhere in the middle of such a long article). To my mind the result of Abian seems rather like a proposition about local connectedness than an application, and I agree that it may not belong in an ultimate version of the article. Further suggestions or help on editing this article would be most welcome: as you can see from the talk page, I identified it as in serious need of editing some time ago, but the changes required are so numerous and substantial as to be somewhat daunting. Plclark (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Geometry Guy. I know we don't really know each other, but you're one of the few admins I know of, let alone know, so I'm sorry if it seems rude of me to just come here and ask a favour. Recently I was added to a list of people to help users create accounts at WP:ACC. Everything was working fine until I tried doing this from uni, where the IP's there are mostly blocked from editing and creating accounts. It turns out that the account creation blocking holds even if I'm logged in, and so I asked User:Stwalkerster, who granted me access to begin with, if anything could be done about it. He/she mentioned that I just need a flag and I'm set, but they're fairly busy at the moment and said my best bet is to just ask someone else. The discussion (it's short) is at User_talk:Stwalkerster#ACC_issues for you to verify, and I was asked to point whoever I ask to this. The account creator flag is another that would help me out too (details are on Stwalkerster's talk page), so if possible, would you be able to help me out? If not that's fine. Cheers, Ben (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on this kind of thing, but you are in my view a trusted user, so I'm going to set the IPBE flag for you. I don't see the need for the account creator flag, since you are unlikely to need to create more than 6 accounts every 24 hours, and if your account were compromised someone could cause serious problems by automatically creating many accounts. Geometry guy 20:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already hit the 6 accounts in one day limit, but that's fine, it's not as big a problem as not being able to make any. Thanks for your help. Cheers, Ben (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geometry guy,

I have asked for a GA review at the round table, but people are busy/dizzy with LateX formatting and icon questions ;) But I remember your thorough review last time, so if you have a moment, could you review vector spaces? This is the page. Thanks a lot. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better if a non-mathematician reviewed it, with me contributing to the review, as happened at the groups article. Geometry guy 19:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your efforts to avoid early close of the de Sitter AfD. The admin seems to prefer a delete review. Delaszk (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes MF's edit there is vandalism. Since MF has chosen not to undo the vandalism, and has chosen to be abusive to content editors, I may be forced to question his competence to participate in the GA process, particularly GA sweeps. Gimmetrow 23:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He removed the GAN, but lets assume that this was a good faith mistake. I have restored it. Otherwise, he restored the correct article history. Any other problems? Geometry guy 23:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have, in my opinion, acted fairly in every GA review I've done, although I'm only human and have undoubtedly made mistakes. I am quite happy to stand down as a GA Sweeps reviewer, or indeed as a GA reviewer if Gimmetrow's opinion of my competence is shared by others. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I see any further abuse from MF, I expect you, GG, to do something about it or get someone else to do something about it. To think I was being nice letting a personal attack go while MF was under a WQ alert. Never again. I will not stand anyone abusing editors like this. People like MF should be made admins so they can't hurt people. Gimmetrow 23:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see the "abuse" of which you speak. I simply warned you about your repeated attempts to rewrite the history of one article that is clearly close to your heart. And I warn you again; if you persist, then I will take whatever action is necessary to make sure that you are never allowed to abuse your authority in that way again. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Despite a clear COI with regard to the Brenda Song article, MF has taken actions with regard to it. I am hereby formally disputing MF's competence to participate in the GA process. I intend to remove him from GA sweeps in about 24 hours unless you have some specific suggestions about how to proceed. Gimmetrow 02:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how do you intend to remove me from GA Sweeps? And what is this COI of which you speak? You are the one who has the COI, not me. I just want to see some honest fair play. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi MF and Gimmetrow. I like both of you. I'm not taking sides. But is there any chance both of you can just click your heels three times, say Ihateyou Ihateyou Ihateyou, stick a pin in a Malleus/Gimmetrow doll (whichever is appropriate), cut the doll's head off, bury it, walk away... and then just ignore each other? You're sorta making everyone on the entire planet unhappy.
• Maybe you should let someone impartial handle the hot babe article, without taking each other to any dispute resolution forum to continue this mini-war. I know you'll BOTH be pissed at me for posting this... but I'm just saying...
• Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the 24 hours is now more than up. Time to make good your threat Gimmetrow and remove me from GA Sweeps. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quit it, both of you. Can't you guys stop growling, staring, biting (or attempting to bite) each other heads off? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]