User talk:Geoffroi

wow
very impressive persistence of editing a large collection of backlog items - horosho! - well done JarrahTree 00:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC) a page watcher has in fact sent me a very off quote about someone thinking assessment is a waste of time - however, there is nothing official from the system or the larger project that assessmment is finished - so while it is still live, great work! JarrahTree 00:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I look at the assessment process as a tool for sorting and organizing, which is important. The class assessment seems more important than the importance assessment, which can be quite subjective. If they do find a better way to sort articles, I hope that they will use the assessment data as part of it. Thanks for the encouragement by the way. Geoffroi (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * the processes by which the really large components were set in the early 5 years - like categories and assessments - havent really been modified at all - it is the flow of editors - and the newer generation seem disinterested in assessment in general - it appears. JarrahTree 00:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's grunge work certainly, and perhaps better tuned for calm, middle-aged folks like me. I'm an accountant, so systematic work like this is 2nd nature. Newer editors focus on content creation, but content has to be organized and maintained. An automated program would have to be carefully designed to take into account referencing, word count, interwiki, etc. They haven't found an alternative yet after 15+ years of Wikipedia. Maybe at 20 or 30 years... Geoffroi (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * human checking is the best in the end, and endless repetitive checking... JarrahTree 01:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Yuri Gagarin
I've uploaded a restoration. Could you have a look? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 21:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Geoffroi (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Elizabeth Glendower Evans
Hey, sorry, my perfectionism got to me, and I redid Alt 1 a bit, because that giant hat really seemed to need a bit more visual-counterbalance at the bottom of the picture. I'm sorry for doing this late in voting, I just wanted to make sure that the image promoted is the best I can do, and the new crop, I think, is way better. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs 22:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You still have my support. This is a great portrait full of personality and intention. Geoffroi  05:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Just feel it's be... wrong to make a major change like that, and not inform all voters. Small spot fixing is one thing, but a different crop, when there's multiple options up? Needs brought to everyone's attention. Same reason a lot of my "reasons" sections will explicitly mention issues with the image, to make sure we have an informed vote. Is it okay the FP of Hattie Caraway was from before her time as senator, and is only the second image on her page? Yes: that was mentioned right at the top of the nomination, so it's clear voters knew. And so on. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs 05:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've seen an restoration I didn't like. I'll keep the support votes coming till you've got 10% of all FPs... ;')  Geoffroi  23:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

WP Russia assessment
Hi Geoffroi,

Just came across this assessment as a stub, do you have a rationale for that? It seems a tad extreme, as this article is considered long enough for DYK (though I didn't nominate it at the time).

Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 20:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The article lacked citations which is why I tagged it and rated it stub. The article has since been worked on by a blocked sockpuppet. I don't mind if it's rated start now, but I'm not going to touch an article that has been edited only by a sock since my assessment. Geoffroi  07:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

FP nom
Hi Geoffroi, could you reply to User:Armbrust question (under your vote) in This nom, so he can close it, thanks. Bammesk (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)