User talk:Geometry guy/Archive 16

An echo, and a family

Soddy's hexlet, missing two fixed spheres.

A thing of beauty is a joy for ever:
Its loveliness increases; it will never
Pass into nothingness; but still will keep
A bower quiet for us, and a sleep
Full of sweet dreams, and health, and quiet breathing.
Therefore, on every morrow, are we wreathing
A flowery band to bind us to the earth,
Spite of despondence, of the inhuman dearth
Of noble natures, of the gloomy days,
Of all the unhealthy and o'er-darkened ways
Made for our searching: yes, in spite of all,
Some shape of beauty moves away the pall
From our dark spirits.

Wow!

Distinguishing springer refs

I notice that you subst'ed the {{springer}} template in the Cartan connection article to distinguish between the two Lumiste articles. Just FYI: in the future you don't need to do this anymore. I have recently modified the template to accept an optional |year= parameter. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Now back to spin representation... Geometry guy 20:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ancient History

Under a former account (Random Replicator) I was part of group of collaborators who invested many hours on an article entitled Introduction to Evolution. During the FA attempt and the simultaneous request for deletion, I invoked a self imposed block of my account. To see so many hours of work on the chopping block was more than I could bear - yet I couldn't break away from the edit options. I finally mustered up the resolve to go back and carefully read over deletion discussion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (2nd nomination). As belated as this may be; your passionate defense of the article and the articulate way you addressed the concerns went far in washing away the bitterness. I can't help but think your strong defense was in part instrumental in the decision to bump it to FA status. Again .. My most sincere appreciation for the opportunity to read your voice of sanity among all the chaos surrounding that article. I now have a new account name and have learned to avoid the hot-bed articles. Well I'm off to edit the Sarah Palin entry! Cheers --JimmyButler (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that is kind of you to take the time to comment. I think it is important to stick up for "Introduction to..." articles. Some people get lost in the rules and forget that we are trying to build a decent encyclopedia here, or, as I prefer to think of it, a nested family of encyclopedias. If you like my approach that "Introduction to X" is a summary style spinout of the lead section of "X", please promote it when you can. Geometry guy 08:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Fishing

Any interest in a Dispatch slot? Looking ahead, I'm seeing a shortage ... is there anything in the GA realm you'd want to cover? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of anything, but there maybe someone at GAN who has an idea. Geometry guy 08:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

JoJo (singer) - needs delisting

This article is clearly nowhere near GA standard. Should I just delist it manually? — Realist² 17:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You should also check out the edit history of that talk page. It was failed on April 21, 2006 then a day later someone else passed it. The original reviewer seemed a little annoyed, (I think) but seemed to let it go. — Realist² 17:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Good article reassessment/guidelines: do an individual reassessment, but please give the authors time to react before delisting. Geometry guy 21:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NRG

Thanks Geometry guy! We'll try to move as quickly as possible on the content! --Katie322 (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Geometry guy 17:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

D.S. (song) passed GA!

Thank you for all your help with that! — Realist² 19:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Great! Your hard work on a tricky article has been justifiably rewarded. I was glad to be able to be of help. Geometry guy 19:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Representation theory

Hi! I just want to say what a beautiful work you are doing in User:Geometry guy/Repn! Congratulations!! Cyb3r (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I intend to ship it out to mainspace today or tomorrow to encourage others to join in the fun. Of course, editors are also welcome in my userspace: my only reason for working on it there is so that the redirect to Group representation will be replaced by at least as complete a resource for readers. Geometry guy 19:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, although the latter parts are far less beautiful than the former - much work to be done, and all help appreciated! Geometry guy 00:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Got time

... to look at Talk:Horse#GA Review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

See also, FA Domestic sheep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

With Moni on the case, it should turn out okay, either through renomination or a GAR. No need for me to intervene just now, thankfully! Geometry guy 00:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That article will be fine; I hope you'll watch the trend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a happy outcome from a GA perspective (and without any involvement on my part): one of GAN's most solid reviewers is on the case. Geometry guy 16:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This time anyway :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Willing to work with me on the Todd Manning article?

Given what you stated in the GA reassessment of the Todd Manning article, I was wondering if you would not mind working with me on it. The help does not have to be immediate, of course. From looking at your contributions, you are a very active editor here, and I will understand if you are too busy to focus that much on an article right now. I just felt it was worth asking. These days, I would be more enthused about getting this article up to par, if I was working on it with someone. Flyer22 (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't promise anything, as I really want to spend some time concentrating on mathematics articles (after doing lots of other stuff), but I have now watchlisted the article, and will join in when I can. There's a lot of excellent material in the article (perhaps even too much): it is just a question of deploying it in the right way. Big Q: do you know of any other scholarly articles/books (apart from the two by Jennifer Hayward) which discuss the character? Geometry guy 10:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for whatever help you can provide. As for more scholarly articles/books on Todd Manning, I have mainly heard that he has been analyzed in several books, possibly more than that. Other books on Google Books that include him are just mentions of him or pieces about the significance of his rape of Marty Saybrooke (I really need to fix up that article), which was something American daytime television had not seen before, at least not in that graphic of detail. I am not sure if it was the first ever gang rape witnessed on an American soap opera, but I always see it referred to as groundbreaking...which, of course, means that it is possible that it was. In fact, I cannot name any other gang rape scene on a soap opera, American or otherwise (though that might have more to do with my lack of research into that matter). Flyer22 (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That's good. A critical reaction section will only work if there is more than one scholar to quote. So at least there can be a section on the character's role in the rape and its aftermath. Geometry guy 14:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

controversy on controversies

Hi, Thanks for your comment at deletion page for manifold destiny. I wanted to react you your comment regarding controversies, which is not really relevant to the case of manifold destiny. This is the first time I hear about your opposition to page names involving the word "controversy". I note that I did not create the title Bishop-Keisler controversy. I did create the article but the title was changed by another editor. I recognize that there is something to be discussed here, so if you state the precise nature of your objections we can take it from there. Note that page names are not chiseled in stone. If there is a consensus regarding a name change, I have no objection to changing it. Note also that most of the page Brouwer-Hilbert controversy was not written by me. Katzmik (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response. I am not blanket opposed to pagenames with the word "controversy". The criterion in my view, is that reliable secondary (independent) sources generally refer to the topic as a controversy. I would guess that this is probably true for the Brouwer-Hilbert controversy, but am less sure (although more ignorant) about the Bishop-Keisler case. However, I am more concerned about the tone in both articles. When Wikipedia expresses a viewpoint, it should be attributed. For instance "polemical review" and "Clearly in a disapproving fashion" - according to whom? Likewise "It is interesting to observe that two people with very similar training in classical mathematics, can arrive at such different conclusions as to the nature of the mathematical trade." Interesting to whom? Who observed this? And from the other article: "He was combative for a young man." What does that mean? And who's opinion is it?

Also colourful language and language which editorializes needs to be avoided or attributed. Here are some examples:

Getting down to business

finally goes for the jugular

In a final passionate appeal

stirred up more trouble than Hilbert could imagine at the time

raged against

Hilbert would wear his pique on his sleave as he singled out one man -- by inference, not by name -- for the cause of his present tribulation

Brouwer's shrill insistence

I hope that is helpful. Geometry guy 14:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to sneak in, I also object to titles with "controversy" or "scandal" in them, I also object to such subsections in articles. — Realist² 14:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments which are helpful. I should clarify that about half the examples you mentioned were not written by me. When I originally created the Brouwer-Hilbert page it consisted mostly of clippings from the biographies of the two protagonists. I created the page because I thought the controversy is of independent interest, and because I thought it might stimulate more material on this interesting controversy touching on essential issues in foundations, as we all know. Indeed, other contributors went on to add additional material which I find interesting. At any rate, most of the expressions you mentioned are from the original biographic pages, and the objections should be stated there. As far as Bishop-Keisler controversy, the fact that the review is polemical is beyond dispute and needs no outside confirmation. In other words, it seems to me that it is a statement of clear fact. Obviously if you disagree this can be discussed at the talk page of the article, we can sollicit other opinions, and delete the term if it does not find favor with a majority of editors. Similarly, the expression "clearly in a disapproving fashion" is there not in order to criticize Bishop (he would be the first one to say that he is being critical!), but to clarify the context of his words to a reader who may not be aware of Bishop's constructivism. I agree that my comment to the effect that "it is interesting to observe" is somewhat "editorial" in nature. I am confident that many people will agree with this sentiment, though. Katzmik (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that using the word "scandal" would be inappropriate. Katzmik (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem with article titles and section headings involving words like "controversy" and "polemical" is that they encourage other editors to spice it up a bit. That's not what Wikipedia is for. In particular, I would note that Keisler is (according to his WP bio) still alive, so the Bishop-Keisler controversy needs to conform to WP:BLP. Geometry guy 16:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Please let me know what you feel are discrepancies with BLP guidelines. Does the page slight Keisler in any way? Katzmik (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for weight merge

That has been on my todo list for a long time. Thanks also for trying to clean up representation theory on wikipedia. I think there is entirely too much to do, but perhaps it will look less hopeless after you efforts. BTW I tried to eliminate (undirected) cycles in the algebra category (ignore fluff categories like "dimension"). I think you may have reintroduced some, but I haven't had time to check. The current state is better than the previous. JackSchmidt (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I really wanted to finish it today, but after trying, I understand how hard you found it to follow through. I think I have seen a way forward, and will try to complete tomorrow. But, as you suggest, cleaning up representation theory as a whole is much more important than cleaning up a few articles, and I think I have made a fair amount of progress in this respect. I'm sure we can work together to fix outstanding problems. Geometry guy 22:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Terminology conflict: I think weight is being used in contradictory ways now (quite possibly for a long time) on Weight (representation theory)#Semisimple Lie algebras. I think "a weight of g" is supposed to mean "a weight of h, for some chosen cartan subalgebra h". I think those are not the same thing, so it is probably good to mention this. I am not very comfortable with this material, but I think something like SL shouldn't have any nontrivial weights as such, but its cartan sub-thingies do, and so "weights of SL" is implicitly changed to mean "weights of the Cartan subthingy of SL". JackSchmidt (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. The situation is clearest (for me) on the Lie algebra level: a weight of g must vanish on the derived algebra [g,g]. In particular, if g is semisimple (like sl), then [g,g] = g and all weights are trivial. Hence one restricts to a Cartan. Geometry guy 21:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Taking thy name, hopefully not in vain ;)

Hey G-guy,

It's so nice to have an excuse to come here again. :) I see that you're diving into math-y articles, which I've been doing lately as well, albeit for very different reasons, I guess.

The harvest is going well in my garden. I'm still feasting on raspberries and tomatoes and everything good, and putting a lot up for winter and giving to food banks and all that stuff. :) It keeps me off the streets, at least for now. ;)

Your name came up at the FAC for Apollonius' problem concerning the origin of the term "orientation" for the sign of a Lie sphere. (I think) I see how to use it computationally, but my intuition falls short in a five-dimensional space with a (to me) weird dot product from an alternative universe. ;) Could you please make it all seem natural and intuitive to us? Willow (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Willow - lovely to hear from you as always! Yes, I've been returning to math-y stuff to give some unloved and lonely pages a bit of TLC. Trying to clean up the representation theory category makes me truly realise the meaning of "the mop". If you get time, I'd value your comments on the new main article, representation theory.

I spotted the FAC at the forum and watchlisted it yesterday. I will see if I can be of assistance. Geometry guy 08:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

PS. I'm just beginning to learn about projective geometry through pole and polar — so cool! :D

PPS. I just had an insight! ummm, or at least I think I did. Like, is Lie sphere geometry like a generalization of projective geometry because it allows not only lines and points to be treated equivalently, but also circles? That would be so awesome — mind-blowing, really. I get it, I get it, I get it! :) Wait, or do I? Willow (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Great! I'm glad you are moving poles and polars forwards! Lie sphere geometry is indeed mind blowing, but there's a subtle difference from projective geometry. In projective plane geometry, points and lines are dual concepts: they are equivalent but not in the same projective plane (lines in a projective plane correspond to points in the dual projective plane). In Lie sphere geometry, points, lines and circles are equivalent in a more direct way. Here are a couple of closer analogues:

• Projective geometry treats finite points and points at infinity equivalently. Hence it also treats lines which meet and parallel lines equivalently: parallel lines are just lines which meet at infinity.
• Moebius (inversive) geometry treats lines and circles equivalently: lines are just circles through the point at infinity.

There is a geometry which treats points and lines, but not circles, equivalently: it is called Laguerre geometry. I hope that helps! Geometry guy 08:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand that; thank you, that's helpful! In the Lie case, lines and points "equivalent" because they can be treated as different types of the same object, whereas in the projective case, they're "equivalent" because you can map one into the other. I hadn't really grasped that distinction before, but it makes complete sense now. :)

I guess for me the insight seemed so illuminating because I'd been wondering how Sophus Lie had come up with such an obscure dot product on five-dimensional objects? It may be ahistorical, but it helped motivate his geometry for me to think that Sophus took a cue from the duality of projective geometry to look for a way in which "lines" and "points" could be generalized to include circles of any radius. But given how different the two geometries seem to me now, that's probably not how it happened. :P But sometimes you have to go through the imaginaries before you can get back to the reals, and it's oddly pleasant and satisfying to have my brain stretched twice before breakfast. ;)

Thanks for the tip about the other geometries, too! I fell in love with maps and map projections when I was little, so I feel right at home with the stereographic projection of Moebius geometry, although I haven't delved into that bilinear transformation and everything. Projective and Laguerre geometry are still terra incognita for me, though; here there be dragons... ;)

I'm a little worried about the Wikipedia 0.7 thing, are you? Have you noticed how many Start articles are on the list of Selected articles? They seem to make up about 1/3 of the list, and I'm not sure that they reflect well on Wikipedia. :( I'm going to try to bring the conic sections up to B-level, although as usual I keep getting distracted... :P On a happier note, I'm still thinking about improving Michael Atiyah with you and Reb; I keep bumping into Michael's name when researching online, most recently while Googling the Tammes problem. Willow (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

§1. Yay - you got it! That moment when it suddenly becomes clear is thrilling isn't it? That's the buzz of doing maths.

§2. I'm not sure if this is how Lie came up with it, but the following explanation is very classical, and as an added bonus, its starting point involves two things you love: Möbius geometry and relativity. First we need to load an image or two into our minds, e.g., Image:World line2.svg, and remind ourselves that Möbius geometry can be viewed as the geometry of the celestial sphere or projective light cone in Minkowski space: points on the celestial sphere are really lines in the light cone (light rays), and Lorentz transformations of spacetime determine Möbius transformations of the sphere. Hence we can describe points in the Möbius plane by homogeneous coordinates (x, y, z, t) with

$x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}-t^{2}=0.$

Now how about circles? Well a circle is just a sphere one dimension lower, so a typical circle in the sphere has homogeneous coordinates (x, y, 0, t) with

$x^{2}+y^{2}-t^{2}=0.$

This is the set of light rays which are orthogonal to the spacelike vector (0,0,1,0) with respect to the dot product

$x_{1}x_{2}+y_{1}y_{2}+z_{1}z_{2}-t_{1}t_{2}.$

There's nothing special about the particular spacelike vector (0,0,1,0). Any spacelike vector v determines a circle in the celestial sphere: just consider the light rays orthogonal to v. In fact any circle arises this way. Problem: two spacelike vectors can determine the same circle. Fortunately, this only happens if one is a multiple of the other. We can remove most of this ambiguity by assuming that v is a unit vector, i.e., v = (x, y, z, t) with

$x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}-t^{2}=1.$

The only ambiguity is that −v is a unit vector defining the same circle. Example: (0,0,1,0) and (0,0,−1,0). Let's say these define the same circle with opposite "orientations". So oriented circles are points on a hyperboloid in Minkowski space. Here's a nice picture one dimension lower: Image:Ruled_hyperboloid.jpg. Imagine the light cone sitting inside this hyperboloid, and think a bit about points as circles of radius zero. Maybe you start to see that as we go out to infinity along the hyperboloid, the circles get smaller and smaller, and the hyperboloid approaches the lightcone.

Hmmm, so now we just need to be as clever as Lie and convert this intuition into algebra. Here's a physicist's approach: what's a unit vector? There's no preferred unit of length in space! Any length scale r is just as good as "1" for defining a "unit". So we could have defined the hyperboloid describing oriented circles as those (x, y, z, t) with

$x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}-t^{2}=r^{2}.$

What if we change our mind, and work with a new length scale ar for some nonzero a? Well then, for any point (x, y, z, t) in the old hyperboloid, we have a corresponding point (ax, ay, az, at) with

$(ax)^{2}+(ay)^{2}+(az)^{2}-(at)^{2}=(ar)^{2}.$

So for any nonzero r we have a description of oriented circles and in the limit as r tends to zero, the circles shrink to points as the hyperboloid approaches the light cone. Suddenly it becomes very tempting to introduce r as a new variable and consider the space of lines with homogeneous coordinates (x, y, z, t, r) such that

$x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}-t^{2}-r^{2}=0.$

For r not zero, we can rescale to a fixed nonzero value of r (say r=1) and describe circles. For r = 0, we recover the homogeneous coordinates of points. To get Lie's funny product, just set u=z+t and v=z-t to rewrite the quadratic condition as

$x^{2}+y^{2}+uv-r^{2}=0.$

The corresponding dot product is

$x_{1}x_{2}+y_{1}y_{2}+{\tfrac {1}{2}}(u_{1}v_{2}+u_{2}v_{1})-r_{1}r_{2}.$

§3. Projective geometry is much easier to understand that Lie sphere geometry or Laguerre geometry, because at least you have a space of points (the points in projective space), whereas points are not well defined in the other two geometries.

§4. "Worried" would be the wrong word. However, I do see the need to make 0.7 as good as it can be, and want to help where I can. I'll watchlist conic sections. I hope we can do something with MA, but some inspiration may be required! Geometry guy 19:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Mentor

Hi. I am in JimmyButler's biology class and I have been assigned to raise a stub article to GA or FA status. My current article is billfish. I was wondering if you would be my mentor or at least offer me some advice. Thanks.--Grander13 (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to help, and have watchlisted that page. Geometry guy 21:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user

Gguy, I'm not sure how to deal with Talk:Avatar: The Last Airbender/GA1; user blocked in case you want to fix <whatever>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Also listing at GAN and Talk:Avatar: The Last Airbender. I'm not really sure what to delete, and what needs to be admin deleted, or how to tidy this up. Can you get to all of it? Thanks (the user was disrupting GAN, FAC and TFA/R with spurious noms and sockpuppetry). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Argh, the IP, too. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed by Gary King. Geometry guy 09:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

So, if we just remove a GA nom, what happens next time in terms of the page=N? Never mind, I don't need to fill my brain with more trivia. Yesterday was a long and miserable day, but that's why I didn't just remove it (unsure how you handle the archive N). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've been having a bad time. For what it is worth, it is better to delete the /GA page in a situation like this, so you were right to leave it to an adminly GA person. Geometry guy 18:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks (but I hope it doesn't happen often and I don't have another day like yesterday anytime soon :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

On it

Okay, I'll go fix all the "cite webs". Although I'm warning you that I may go insane if I stare at that page one more time. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you feel about using "cite web" for online "reprints" from print newspapers? I have one in there from the Cleveland Free Times. It's supposedly a weekly mostly used for classified ads. Although newspapers will generally claim that you're getting exactly the same thing online as was in print, I've found that it ain't necessarily so, so I think "cite web" is more honest than "cite news" when I'm not actually reading the print version. However, I'll bow to the will of the proletariat if that's not how it's done. (Free free to reply here. Or not.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, which template you use is neither here nor there: you don't even have to use a citation template at all. For articles where I'm a major contributor, I use {{citation}} for everything, but that's just my taste. What matters is that you supply the relevant bibliographic information. For books, that includes the publisher and the year of publication and preferably the ISBN.

I looked at the other references at Robot and didn't find any other examples of books with missing bibliographic information. Indeed, a much more serious problem is how few books there are among the references. So, instead of staring at the page and going insane, I recommend fresh air and a trip to the library! Geometry guy 19:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It was temporary insanity, I'm all better. I knew someone would say we needed more books. Books are fine for more focused articles; for instance, I've got Hornyak's book to help me write an article on Eastern views of robotics. But look at Robot#Further reading: the titles seem innocuous enough, but I can't vet any of those. I'm not going to get 5 books through inter-library loan just to see whether or not they add something to "Further reading" ... and there's no need, because just about no one else will read them, either. So, I invite you to pick any website in the refs at Robot, and tell me why it's not reliable for the purpose we're using it for. I threw out about half of the refs I found and the associated material, so I'm picky, but this is a very fuzzy area for me so I'm sure I'll have to discard more before we're done. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A search on GoogleBooks for "Robotics" produces 12500 hits. I reckon some of those will be in your local library, or the library of someone who edits the article, which right now has a grand total of two references to books on robots/robotics. Geometry guy 19:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added my analysis of the sources to the GAR. I'm sorry it isn't particularly pretty reading. This is what WP:V and all those other policies and guidelines look like on the front line! I hope other editors will comment there too, so that you will get a sense of whether this is just me, or reflects consensus on what these guidelines mean in practice. Geometry guy 20:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Now for something completely different

On an issue recently at WT:MOS, with the relevant bits copied from Carl's talk page. Do you know if this is doable, G-Guy?

I'd be glad to try to help, but I don't quite follow what you're asking for. Could you give me a couple specific pages where the problem comes up, and a description of how you'd like them to be fixed? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It comes up a lot; one example is an article I'm editing for WP:GAR: Robot#Dirty, dangerous, dull or inaccessible tasks. MOS:IMAGE prefers that lines not be truncated on both sides by images, because some people use narrow windows or narrow screens. But that means we can't fit the images in that section; at the least, I need to do what I did, which is to put the first image link just above rather than just after the heading. Graham doesn't like this; when his screen reader tells him there's an image there, he doesn't know that there's a new section just below it that the image belongs in. If he happens to stop there, he'll get confused. An obvious fix would be for screens readers to read the heading first; obviously, if an image starts on the same line as a heading, it belongs in that section. But until the screen readers get fixed, is there anything we can do to make it easier for Graham? That is, we want to put the image link right after the heading, but have it show up on the same line as the heading. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I meant that MOS:IMAGE doesn't like lines of text that have images on both sides. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you find out anything, Carl? I can pass the buck to G-guy, or we can just harass the guys that make the screen readers. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I got distracted. I can see where the screen readers would get confused - if the image literally precedes the heading in the HTML, the screen reader can't tell what section it is in. I don't know any way to cause them to appear in the other order in the HTML but get the effect that you want, unfortunately. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll punt this to G-Guy. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is nothing that can be done here. My advice is not to worry too much about text flowing between left and right images, but try to optimize the placement of images to minimize this. Whenever I'm making edits to image placements (e.g. in a GAR), I vary the width of my browser to ensure the result is acceptable in a wide range of configurations. Of course left and right images should not begin on the same line. However, any consecutive left and right images will inevitably overlap on a sufficiently wide browser (I have a wide screen). However, if the browser is wide enough, such overlapping is not a problem. Geometry guy 21:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's my feeling too; we're looking for the best tweak to the style guidelines on this. When we feel the need for several images, such as at Robot#Dirty, dangerous, dull or inaccessible tasks, I often see editors putting the image link just above rather than just below the heading, because that makes it appear on exactly the same line, which is apparently what they want. As I say, this causes a problem with screen readers, but that seems to me to be a problem with screen readers; obviously they should read the heading first in this situation. Other than the problem with screen readers, can you think of an objection to this common practice? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Another standard objection concerns blind editors: if the image is above the section heading, then it can't be edited by editing that section. Personally, I think there's a danger of giving too much weight to accessibility issues, but I'm not very politically correct. Geometry guy 21:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, if an image shows up on exactly the same line as a heading, it's intended to correspond to that section, so we should be able to edit the image when we click on that link. Thanks for bringing this up, I'll add it to the list of all the ways devs suck are the most important people in the world, who should respond quickly to this request. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a confusion here between wikilayout and browser HTML rendering, nothing to do with anything the developers can do. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A section is stored as a record in a database; why couldn't that record contain any image links directly preceding the heading? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Because those image links would then potentially be in two sections, so which is the master? The image layout problem is more complicated than this simple scenario implies anyway. Take a look at Beeston Castle, for instance, which demonstrates that images don't need to belong to any section. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

←If an image spans two sections, I suppose in theory you could argue about which section it belongs in, but I bet people wouldn't argue about that, they'd want it in the first section. MediaWiki will make an image appear on the same line (in general) as the heading if the image link appears directly before the heading. Who would look at such an image and think that there would be some confusion over whether it belongs in the previous section? Seems like an easy call. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree whether it's worth changing the way that wikilayout is parsed before being stored in the database to solve what is really hardly a problem at all, to say nothing of the massive database conversion exercise it would require. I know what my reaction to the suggestion would be if I were one of the developers anyway, and it wouldn't be pretty. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. And, I don't always have my brain switched on ... sorry I said "easy call" as if there's something wrong if you don't see it my way! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

A GA question

Can you help with a quick GAN question? I'm doing a GA review of Homosexuality in speculative fiction, and the subpage transclusion isn't refreshing on the article's talk page. If I go to the review subpage everything is there, but when I look at article talk it's not: the transcluded text is just the first revision of the subpage. I vaguely remember seeing some "purge and refresh" instructions somewhere in GA-space, but I can't find them now. Can you enlighten me as to what's going on and how I can fix it? Are others seeing what I see, or is it viewer-specific? Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries; I found it -- "?action=purge" on the URL. But it was in your comment on GA talk that I found the answer, so you were evidently the right person to ask! Mike Christie (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Chinese remainder theorem

...is there some "We're Math Folks and we'll capitalize iff we want to, dammit" reason why Archimedes isn't capitalized in Chinese remainder theorem? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 23:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That article is a very good example of why mathematics articles ought not to be written by mathematicians IMO. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

shhhhhh he'll hear you.. he's touchy about these things... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

To be only a little bit serious, I have until fairly recently deliberately avoided articles on subjects that I have professional knowledge of; even now I find them the hardest to work on, because so many things are just obvious common knowledge, or at least they are to me. So I'm somewhat sympathetic. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That one is not so bad: if you want to see a really good example of a bad math article, try Syntactic monoid. I would clean it up, but I have no clue what it is trying to say, and it has no references.

Despite such examples, I do recommend having (blind) faith in the wiki: what you presume, someone else will fill in one day. As for the original question, some people drop the capitals in derived adjectives, as in "Archimedes was an archimedean kind of guy". A prominent example is "abelian" (after Abel). But the whole passage about Archimedes was OR and has been removed anyway. Geometry guy 10:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Troublesome PR

Hi G guy, the article on Rudolf Wanderone has a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Rudolf Wanderone/archive1 but it is not showing up on WP:PR. The article was listed there, then I did the semi-transclusion trick to save space. The nominator then thought it had been archived and moved it to Wikipedia:Peer review/Rudolf Wanderone, AND copied the semi-automated peer review to it. I have removed the SAPR and thought I moved it back properly, but it still is not showing. Could yopu please take a look and figure out what the problem is? Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a VeblenBot issue. The article is in the category, but has been removed from the list by VeblenBot during all the messing about caused by editors not reading instructions. Geometry guy 10:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for looking at it. I will ask Carl about it. It is also close to October if you want to do the PR end of month maintenance. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

So I left a note on Carl's page, then thought to double check WP:PR and it is (of course) listed there now. D'oh! Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

See here. Geometry guy 12:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick question

...over at User_talk:Happy-melon#GAN vs. A-class. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Exploding brain

Oh My Polygamy: my brain explodes at six proposals on the page at once. But at least most of my polygamous crew is being nice to each other now :-) Let me see, now if I can get Malleus talking to Marskell and Raul and my life will be complete :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My edit summary "Yet another proposal :-)" got lost in the edit conflict. Believe me, you have it easy at WT:FAC: take a look at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise. Geometry guy 21:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't even go there; if I see one more complex thing today, my brain will explode. I'm in the midst of a "when it rains, it pours" phase all over everything I do on Wiki :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever thought about doing less? I tried it for a while this summer. Amazingly :-), Wikipedia managed perfectly well without me.

It was good for me too, and I intend to continue contributing at a lower level. Of course, I understand that your role at FAC means it is crucial to you that sensible decisions are made about FA processes, but WT:FAC is blessed by the number of sensible editors who contribute. Tony, Marskell, Malleus, Karanacs, Ealdgyth and Dank (a random sample) may have all sorts of different views, but they all have Wikipedia's best interests at heart and are intelligent and articulate. Geometry guy 21:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I did, not only think about it, but do it. I unwatched almost all of my medical articles and WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS, and one of the polygamists got beaten up on and took a break. Made me feel terrible. People have been there for me when I needed help on Wiki. So I've got to get back in there and help out. Honestly, I posted once to Jimbo's talk page, inquiring why we don't have a policy as strong as BLP for deaing with medical misinformation on Wiki; he earned my never-ending respect by ignoring my query, and currently, ArbCom has earned same by allowing our finest medical editors to be abused of. Ya know, medical articles can affect real lives.

Don't we have a wonderful sampling of fine editors at FAC? I just adore that crew. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a positive note to end on. I'm going to sleep and let Wikipedia manage without me. My thoughts were intended to promote cross-process and Wikipedia-wide thinking, but I don't mind if they are roundly ignored. Geometry guy 22:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Marskell and I may not always agree – come to think of it, I don't think we've ever agreed – but I'm not displeased to be included with him in Gguy's list. I really have wondered whether we don't have a subtle language problem, in that neither of us fully understands the nuances of the other. As GBS said, two nations divided by a common language. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

GA question

Quick question; I could swear that GA instructions specified a 7-day limit on holds, but that seems to have changed to "a period of time". Are there any guidelines now for how long a GAN can be on hold? I've had an article on hold for six days, and was wondering what to say to the nom; I also was wondering what protocol is about taking articles off the hold backlog given that there's no time limit to cite. E.g. I've sometimes in the past jumped in and closed a GA which had been on hold for weeks with no nominator response; can that be done now? Mike Christie (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember it specifically as 7 days too. Dunno about your second question. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 11:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines have shifted away from being too prescriptive about holds. My view is that reviewers should use their discretion about how long to keep an article on hold, with 7 days being nominal. Certainly after 7 days, the reviewer should feel free to fail the nomination if the criteria have not been met. However, many reviewers will extend the hold period if improvements have been made and are ongoing.

Many reviewers try to make clear their approach when they put the article on hold (some might say "at least 7 days", others "at most 7 days", others "I will check back in a about a week").

If you want to close a hold by another reviewer, I suggest pinging the reviewer first. Geometry guy 18:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the move to less prescriptive deadlines. However, I might as well say this will probably stop me from addressing that part of the backlog. A couple of times in the past I've gone to the backlog report and picked out something way overdue to clean up; knowing that there is no limit seems to me to make it harder to do that. With FAC, at least, one has many eyes on an article, so someone will always notice a problem. With GAN, a new nominator with a GA languishing overdue for weeks may not know how to effectively complain about it, and I think clear limits would be good in a situation like that. As I say, I see both sides of this, but I'm not sure it was the best move. I suppose I should hang out at GAN more if I want a say, though! Mike Christie (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There is quite a difference between weeks and several days; the real issue is whether the review is active or not. I would have to admit to a certain amount of jaundice in my view though, so take it or leave it.[2] --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Lost in the shuffle

So much was posted below the thread that I think many people missedyour comment. I did reply there. Marskell (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's okay: it was a rather late contribution. It is at least there to refer to as a basepoint, if editors want to investigate and refine the idea. Geometry guy 18:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You may or may not

...want to weigh in at WT:MOS#Identity dispute (redux) yourself, or invite someone to join us who's well-grounded in BLP issues. No one is coming to mind at the moment as an expert in this stuff, and I'm rowing against the tide :) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, but I'll add my perspective. Geometry guy 09:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem of Apollonius

Willow has been off the Wiki for five days now, but someone put up a long list at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Problem of Apollonius. I can wait a few more days, but I sure would hate to archive it when someone should be able to address that list :-(( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a job for someone who has "geometry" in their actual username. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

My main concern is that Willow is okay. I hope so. I can look at the list, but I am not familiar with the sources and will have very little time until next weekend. I do hope we will hear from Willow before that. This may be a case to relax whatever rules you have for archiving FACs that fall silent with outstanding issues. Geometry guy 23:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Case in point re those clamoring for time limits. This FAC is not i archivable condition ... unless something is really wrong ... and I have many similar IARs that come up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I e-mailed WillowW days ago and haven't heard back ... I'm afraid I'll have to close it soon. Worried and concerned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Hope she's okay. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (please let me know if I missed something), there are five items left on Randomblue's list, which includes the two citation needed tags. With the level of support the article has, and only one oppose, I'll let it go through the weekend so you have a chance to see if you can resolve the remaining items. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. I have some sources to hand now and will do what I can. Indeed I was just resolving one issue (for me) when the gold banner lit up. Geometry guy 21:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

G guy, typically when someone takes over shepharding a FAC when the nominator goes AWOL, I add the new editor as a co-nom; there are several precedents where I've done this. Unless you object, I will add you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It is only appropriate to add me if you also think it appropriate to add Ben Tillman. I don't think it is. I would like this article featured as a tribute to Willow: the rest of us are just realizing her vision. I'm not interested in any personal stake. If my support vote matters for anything, you are welcome to discount it. Geometry guy 21:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If I add co-noms, I would add both; the criterion that I've used in past similar situations was "would I have had to archive the nom if these people hadn't stepped in to take over"? I can't recall the other noms where this happened; one was a railraod or train, and one involved Malleus, where he declined the co-nom. However, your wish is my command :-) If you strongly insist on not being added, I won't; otherwise, the precedent is that I do add you both, as you took over resolving issues raised and the nom could not have continued without that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I would prefer that the nom remains as purely Willow. If Ben feels any differently, please let me know and I will reconsider. Geometry guy 21:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you're number two on contribs, I'll leave it at that to respect your wishes. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. My edits, for all their number, have been relatively minor. Or, as an editor I greatly admire once said "I'm a famously inefficient editor". Geometry guy 21:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Famously. Check out my edit count at Samuel Johnson, where I'm responsible for only three paragraphs (well, and almost three years of cleanup and vandal reverts :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

:-) Not important, but what tool do you use for these counts? Geometry guy 22:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's in the userbox on my userpage: Articlestats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! At 74 vs. 559, I feel comfortable with my preference not to be a co-nom :-) Geometry guy 22:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Sandy must be wrong. I'm always looking for any way to climb up that WP:WBFAN ladder that I can, so I'm sure if I'd been offered a co-nomination for whichever article it was (I can't remember either) I'd have snapped her hand off. ;-) But far more importantly, I hope that Willow's absence is only for good reasons. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, she is greatly missed already and I hope she will return. However, today an article which she nurtured and treasured has been promoted to FA, so I invite everyone to join me on her talk page for a little party to celebrate in her honour. Geometry guy 19:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC) PS. Thank you Sandy, for your patience — do join us!

Uncomfortable Moments in the English Classroom

Hi G-Guy. Perhaps you can help me and my poor innocent and bewildered Chinese-speaking freshmen with an English question. It has to do with the logic of sets. ;-)

• Assume that I cannot speak Tagalog. Further assume that I cannot speak Vietnamese.

1. In the Chinese language, this assertion could correctly be stated: "I cannot speak Tagalog and Chinese."
2. In English, though, we must use "or" (disjunction) to express the same idea.
3. I tried in vain for half an hour to explain to the wide-eyed young things that the statement in #1 above could have 2 or even 3 interpretations. I gave up, gave them your email address and told them to email you and said I'd try to explain it again next week, but for this week just memorize it, dammit! ;-)

• Is there an article that can make sense of this? Or can you?
• Tks Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's probably the negative "I cannot" that's causing the problem. Humans don't think in mathematical sets, and negative statements can often be confusing. A simple Venn diagram would be enough to demonstrate that the sets of "I cannot speak Tagalog" and "I cannot speak Chinese" are disjoint. As to how to explain that the statement "I cannot speak Tagalog and I cannot speak Chinese" does not have the same object as "I cannot speak Tagalog and Chinese" and would be better said as "I can speak [avoiding the negative] neither Tagalog nor Chinese" I leave as an exercise for the reader. Failing that, what some elementary lessons in Boolean algebra? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Malleus has hit the nail on the head here (although I would say "distinct" rather than "disjoint"). Not(A and B) means (Not A) or (Not B). Geometry guy 20:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Transparency

In the interest of being transparent and getting feedback if I'm doing something wrong, I'm thinking about telling robotics people that, if they'll pick the sources and write from the sources, I will be happy to copyedit their articles up to the GA level, and if the articles sit in the GAN queue for two or three weeks with no takers (which seems likely, reviewers have been very slow to pick up engineering articles in general ... we might have no takers for robotics), then I'll probably review them myself (and I'll post a note somewhere ... WT:GAN perhaps? ... asking for someone to look over my shoulder, since WP:ROBO is one of my wikiprojects and I want to avoid the perception of bias). I've studied some AI but I wouldn't call myself a roboticist and I haven't collaborated on any of User:Jiuguang Wang's great articles, including a bunch of DYK articles. All the people who are writing great articles in robotics and robotics-relevant AI speak English as a second language and aren't up on GA criteria and style guidelines, so a little encouragement is probably in order. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Hm. Now that I think about it, this might work in the short term but won't work long-term. The guys who don't do much writing and don't know the style guidelines are probably going to ask me to do more and more of the writing, and at the point where my contributions are significant, I can't do the review. Hm. Well, we'll muddle through. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking much the same. If the first language of these editors isn't English you might well find youself doing a bit more than a bit of pre-GAN tweaking. If lack of willing reviewers does turn out to be a serious problem for the project, I'd be happy to chip in. I haven't kept up with advances in AI, so it might be a good opportunity to update myself anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yay! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? (U.S. game show)

Could you restart that as a community GAR for me please, like you suggested? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We could have just deleted and started over, but to save time, I've moved your individual reassessment to a community one. It's linked from the talk page banner and will be listed at GAR within an hour. Geometry guy 23:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy GA delist

Thanks for closing that for me. I started the GA review because I wasn't going to get any motivation to fix the references without it. I was hoping to avoid involving GA, but what can you do? At least the article is a little better, even if it's still not up to GA standards. In any event, just wanted to let you know that you're not stepping on any toes. Pagrashtak 21:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by: I appreciate you taking the trouble to comment here. I think Anomie will be a little unhappy about the delisting, but I hope further improvement will be encouraged. Geometry guy 21:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

AP Biology Project

Of course we would dearly appreciate any assistance your group would care to offer. But fair warming .... high school students are going to require considerably more patience than a group of college students in an advance course in literature with an experienced captain at the helm.

I'm sailing through uncharted waters here. If my crew should mutiny; I would hate for it to become an example to the Wikipedia community as the Project that sank! I've seen enough already to gather some of them are already sea-sick on this voyage. No doubt -- others will be walking the plank before we make it to our destination. However, stowaways are welcome; so come aboard, grab a line --- and maybe we can avoid the reef! Sorry --- Pirates of the Caribbean on HBO --- although I might need a bottle of rum before this is over.

I would love to see FoodPuma (talk · contribs · count) make it to GA; he has moved up the ranks very fast; despite the rather stout blow to the head in his GA attempt. If he can pull it off it would serve as a confidence builder for the rest of the crew. Perhaps even quell the rumor that the earth is indeed flat and we will soon be falling over the edge into the eternal abyss. It would also free him up to share the insights he has gained with others. Max is one of the few seniors in the class; he has also shown a willingness to step in and help his younger ship-mates. Some of these guys are 14 --- barely old enough to be cabin boy.

But to the point. YES! and Thank You! --JimmyButler (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)