User talk:Geometry guy/Archive 7

Congrats!
Congratulations on winning a very strong vote of confidence from the community! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wonderful news for the community. Congratulations, G'guy! :) Lara  ❤ Love  02:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Looks like you are Admin number 1400, have fun with the tools. —Cronholm144 03:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks guys. Now I won't have to bother Oleg with my little admin chores any more. ;) Geometry guy 07:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Always the Johanna-come-lately! ;) Oh well, I hope you know my congratulations are just as hearty; you deserve it! I warmly admired the way you engaged with John254, the second opposer; it confirmed everything wonderful that I already believe about you. :)  Parabolically, G-girl 18:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But most welcome at the party! Many thanks for the eloquent conomination Willow: I think this contributed greatly to the friendly atmosphere of the RfA. We ought to work together on something again. eh? I've missed that. Geometry guy 20:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd like that very much, too; those were some of my favourite times at Wikipedia! :) Somehow, since equipartition theorem, my own impetuousness has landed me in trouble, where I'm always trying to do too much at once, instead of getting anything done, do you know what I mean?  :( I do want to finish these enzymes, but then let's do something fun together!  For me, there's X-ray crystallography and Kepler problem in general relativity, which seem to be oozing their way towards FA; and I'd appreciate your advice on Catullus 2, which failed its (premature) GA, and my latest affection, Usher syndrome.  But I'm also game for any of your favourite articles, although I suspect I'd be as slow as molasses and have to read up a lot. :P Longer term, we could do something fun and slightly recherché, like trying to make a Featured Topic about spherical geometry or the Kepler problem.  Hopefully, our deep-C friend would join our Airy flight! ;)  Smiling at the cheery prospect, Willow (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... Spherical geometry sounds interesting: add in a bit about spherical polar coordinates, a touch of astronomy, and some non-Euclidean geometry, and we have a rather multi-faceted topic. Geometry guy 22:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, spherical geometry would be fun, no? It's seems like the simplest and most intuitive non-Euclidean geometry, so that if people understand that, it might not be too hard for them to extrapolate to an ellipsoid and thence to all.  Perhaps we could also add spherical trigonometry, map projections and maybe lune?  The Riemann sphere and its usefulness in conformal mappings (tie-in to map projections and orthogonal coordinates?) lie further afield, but maybe they'd be OK, too?  I suppose we shouldn't get too ambitious. ;)  Knitting a new sweater and still exhausted from yesterday, Willow (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the round table might be able to help, at least once work on Homotopy groups of spheres settles down (incidently, have you seen the latter article?). I'm happy to help out with Catullus 2, and have commented already at Template talk:Catullus (in case it is not on your watchlist). Geometry guy 12:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen Homotopy groups of spheres before, but it seems fascinating. I'd hardly heard of anything in the lead, though, so I had to systematically click on all the links and sublinks to educate myself first.  Once I'd caught the wave, though, it was pretty easy surfing through your prose. ;)  I've only finished the lead, though; I'll have to postpone the pleasure until I tackle all these lyases — I'm almost done with the list of EC numbers (EC 4)! :)  Wish me luck, Willow (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Best regards & best wishes, Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks Pete! Geometry guy 22:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little late, but decide to pile on. Congradulations *shake hands* OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Although I don't regard adminship as a big deal, I do believe in any excuse for a party, and all are welcome! Geometry guy 23:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

General thanks
Thanks to all who commented at my RfA. Much as I love the post-RfA postcard tradition, those who know me will probably not be surprised to hear that it isn't really my style. But I have greatly appreciated all the contributions, both support and critique. Thanks once more. Geometry guy 07:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Favor
Hi Geometry guy, first off, congratulations. I hope you find the tools useful. I also have a small favor to ask. You might have noticed that your nomination was one of several others I made over that last week, this was partly spurred by the threat of IPs being allowed to create new pages, but also has a more general objective. This other reason was that I have been a little disturbed by a growing attitude that admins are more than just editors with a few more buttons on their toolbars and are instead "senior editors" with greater authority. I think that the best way of dealing with this idea is to greatly expand the pool of admins to include a wider diversity of the pool of editors.

Since you have now passed the selection, would it be possible for you in turn select and nominate some people you trust? I'd suggest aiming for about three over the next month or so. Of those who are selected, could you ask them in turn to select and nominate three candidates. Such a chain of trust should result, over time, in a greatly enlarged pool of admins from a wide variety of backgrounds and thus provide a simple and effective way of spreading the responsibility - perhaps to the point where becoming an admin is seen as normal and expected, rather than a major achievement. I hope you'll be able to help me with this. Thank you. -- Tim Vickers (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and many thanks for your help. I noticed that you have been nominating many well qualified editors for adminship recently, and was intending to thank you for this general effort, but you beat me to it by commenting here first! I agree with your analysis of the threats, your philosophy about adminship, and your proposed solution to greatly expand the pool of admins. I'm not sure about the method though: it seems to rest upon the perception that only admins can nominate other editors for adminship, which is surely part of the philosophy you are trying to change! If there is such a perception, then rather newbie admins may not be the best nominators. Anyway, this is merely food for thought: I am certainly willing to help. I only mention this because even though I don't actually intend to change my editing practice very much, I'd like a couple of weeks to settle into the new role. If I seem to have forgotten about your suggestion in December, please do not hesitate to remind me! Geometry guy 19:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point about needing to expand the set of nominators, as well as the set of nominees. Perhaps approaching the Wikiprojects might help with attracting more candidates. -- Tim Vickers (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of Discriminant of an algebraic number field
Hi, Geometry Guy. I just rewrote this article in my sandbox, and am planning on replacing the current version with my rewrite on Sunday (I've already posted this message on the article's talk page). I figured I'd just let you know since you went to the bother of rating the original article (though I'm sure you've rated many articles...). Cheers. -- RobHar (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like a fantastic improvement to me! Could you expand the lead/introduction a little to reflect the much improved content you have provided? As for the article rating, I see from the talk page that Cronholm is already on the case, so you can expect excellent commentary and suggestions :-) Self-assessment is also fine at this level: your replacement is clearly no longer a stub, so feel free to adjust the rating accordingly. Geometry guy 19:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Chuckle
I'm glad you appreciated it :-))) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A note of gratitude
Thank you for responding to my distress over the COI incident. When Wiki goes haywire, it's nice to have friends and to know that others understand how upsetting such a thing can be. Next, I am going to work on my response to the bot-folk about why it is so troubling, but first, my thanks. Kind regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You are most welcome. Sometimes technical folk just don't see the human side. I hope this will be resolved happily. Geometry guy 22:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * PS. That is a lovely flower. I used to take such close-up photographs. Thank you.

email disabled?
Well, it looks like your email has been disabled or turned off. Would you mind sending me a message? I have a warning pertaining to your project that I would like to pass one. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how that happened. I've turned it on again. Geometry guy 10:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, email is sent. Thanks. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Less terse = less rigor?
Hi G-guy,

I'm cooking for my family, who are due any second, but I have just enough time to dash off a note to you, wishing you and Cronholm a happy Thanksgiving (in case you celebrate) and to ask for your insights. I changed the lead of homotopy groups of spheres to make it slightly more accessible to lay-people, but at least one editor seems to think that I damaged the mathematical rigor. Could you look it over and see where I went astray? I thought I was being slightly more rigorous, since the term "sphere" was being used loosely in the present version; a lay-person, I fear, will generally think that "sphere" means only S2. I also think that some low-dimensional examples in the lead might help the casual reader to visualize it all. Willow (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Alas on this little island, we are unaware of such celebrations and must wait more than another month for our turkey. As for HGOS, well, you made six edits, and only two were reverted, so that isn't bad going!
 * It is very difficult to achieve a good balance between the lead being a good introduction and an authoritative summary, and concise at the same time. Some editors lean towards a textbook style, others offer no compromise to the lay reader. I think the lead is not too bad at the moment. My own attitude is not to tinker too much with the lead until the article is right: I tend to edit from the bottom to the top of articles. I have already contributed a lot towards this lead, and it needs other eyes. So I won't do much with it for now, at least not until I have some time to reevaluate the rest. Geometry guy 21:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

...would you take a look
...at this? Fell free to edit if you wish. Thanks. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked at it ;) and see that you have an excellent second opinion already. I agree with you that WP:V is a minimum requirement, not a gold standard, but It isn't really my approach to insist on it as an absolute requirement to avoid deletion. Wikipedia is imperfect, and many valuable articles (e.g. on technical topics) do not meet WP:V at all yet. Wikipedia is a work in progress: these articles will meet WP:V in the end!
 * On a different note, I was glad to see my bad hand sock at work at WP:GAR. I remember the surprise you expressed about Universe that several good editors ignored the lack of breadth/neutrality because the article fitted with the worldview of a scientific rationalist (I hope I interpret your comment correctly). I am likewise disappointed that good editors are endorsing the neutrality of Opus Dei which is (at best) only neutral from a broadly Catholic worldview. Geometry guy 23:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Blue
Why did you remove the subsections? i know there were too many, but now it looks...crowded and messy. Was that discussed somewhere?-Yamanbaiia (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed them because the subtopic level is already fine enough to break down GANs into manageable lists: if it seems overcrowded in places, then this is a sign that new subtopics need to be introduced. It was discussed briefly at WT:GAN. Geometry guy 23:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It really does look like a big blue list, but if no one else complains, i'll just adapt. Thanks for pointing out the discussion. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 09:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Part of the problem is that the backlog is way too large: it has been hovering around 200 for the last three months, and there is no sign that it will return to a sensible level (maybe 100) any time soon. My own analysis is that WP:GAN no longer encourages new reviewers: it has become too complicated. Instructions breed more instructions: your experience with Tefillin suggests that there should be instructions for removing "On Hold" from GANs which have been left for too long. My view is that "On Hold" should be scrapped as instruction creep. Geometry guy 19:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually agree. Although I haven't taken a look at any other sections other than music (which is so long it gave me a headache) some subsections are necessary. Others, on the other hand, were unnecessary and immaterial to the overall page and can therefore remain absent. NSR 77 TC  20:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. Can we take this discussion back to WT:GAN so others can contribute if they wish? Geometry guy 20:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Proof
Ahah! I had missed the category, and the usefulness of a seperate template is apparent to me now. I don't exactly have much time right now, if you could create a template that looked and was worded like other top-of-the-page disambiguation templates, I would have no objections. Atropos (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The GA list
Do you have anything against alpabetical order? --andreasegde (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * For the subtopics, no; for the topics themselves, maybe, as I explained in my edit summary. The problem is that the topics are used in multiple places: WP:GAN, WP:GA, WP:0.5, Template:WP1.0. If you want to reorder the topics, this should be done consistently across Wikipedia. There are only 10 of them, so it doesn't seem to me to matter too much that they are in a traditional rather than alphabetical order. However, I don't feel strongly about this. If you make the case that a consistent reordering of the topics is worthwhile, I won't object, and may even be able to help. Geometry guy 19:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

GA newsletter
We're just about ready to go with the December issue. I'm waiting for info from Blnguyen for the GAN reviewer of the month bio, and I want SandyGeorgia to take a look at the article history part, and then it will be good to go. I would've done this a few days earlier, but I've been on the road from Arizona to Pennsylvania this week, and haven't had a chance. Thanks for your help on the newsletter! Dr. Cash 01:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made a few more edits. Feel free to edit my edits. I hope the move went well. Geometry guy 17:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Cache for category lists
I wrote code this morning to cache the category lists, and enabled it for the peer review category. The system caches the last time a page was spotted in a category, and the timestamp when the page was originally added to the category. If the last time that a page was spotted was less than than a certain time ago (configurable per category), the timestamp for category membership will not be updated. If the page has not been seen in sufficiently long, the timestamp is updated. The current time limit for the peer review category is 48 hours. I tested the code by hand, and made a live test with Selective catalytic reduction, but it's possible there is some subtle bug. So please let me know if anything seems strange. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Carl, that sounds good. I'll keep an eye out for problems, and maybe make a few tests myself. Hopefully this is robust enough now to use for the GA pages, once suitable categories are implemented. Geometry guy 16:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I also fixed the problem that made the bot stop uploading on the 4th. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Very good. I was wondering: would you be able to manually fix the timestamps on two articles? Namely: Burger King advertising (should be 20:11, 23 November 2007) and Sarah Brightman (should be 02:52, 29 November 2007). I'm going to try to roll this out at WP:PR in the next week or so, and it would help the pitch if these two articles (which were listed at PR without adding the talk page template) were in about the right place rather than at the top. Geometry guy 18:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

GAN move for SFMR to transport section
Thank you. &mdash; Rudget speak.work 14:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

GA categories: Leeds Country Way
Hallo, I see you've moved Leeds Country Way from GA category "Sports and recreation: miscellaneous" to "Geography and places: Parks, conservation areas and historical sites". That subheading doesn't seem to include long-distance footpaths! It isn't a park, a conservation area, or a historical site (nor is it within any of those), and most other footpaths wouldn't be, either. In nominating it for GA I looked for a "Geography" subheading to put it under, and as none of the ones in GAN were appropriate and there wasn't a "Geography: Miscellaneous", I went for "Everyday life: Sport and recreation: Miscellaneous" as the least inaccurate option.

Roads are under Transport, which doesn't seem appropriate, but I wonder whether "Everyday life: Sports and recreation: Sports and other activities" might be appropriate? I can't find any other articles about footpaths/trails which are GA or FA to compare!

Or can we get the sub-heading "Parks..." widened by adding "recreational routes" or similar, to include horse-riding and cycling routes as well as footpaths? PamD (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there: thanks for stopping by. I know this one is hard to place, isn't it? I'm in favour of widening the "Parks" subheading, possibly even splitting it in two, and like your suggestions. Geometry guy 18:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've looked more closely, and this whole section is a bit of a dumping ground. In particular, Zoo's and public parks are listed here. I think these should be moved to "Sport and recreation" leaving, mainly, national parks and conservation areas, at least once all the buildings are moved to the architecture section. Do you think "recreational routes" go better with "national parks and conservation areas" or with "public parks and zoos"? Geometry guy 19:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think probably with the national parks etc, within Geog. PamD (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That was my instinct too. Thanks again - Geometry guy 20:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've spotted your changed heading... nb spelling of "countryside", and I'm just wondering where an article about an urban walking route would go? eg Capital Ring which "passes through green areas of both urban and suburban London." - green space, yes, but not countryside. PamD (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I spotted the typo, but thanks anyway. I think an urban/suburban walking route is getting closer to the kind of recreation that a public park provides: a likely main use is for jogging ;-) It's a delicate dividing line, though, and I could easily be persuaded to put all recreational routes together, under sport and recreation. Geometry guy 20:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Let's leave it as is for now, and perhaps rethink if there's a GA sub/urban path!  Thanks for the change you've made.  Will it be reflected in the WP:GAC categories, to help nominators? There's at least one long-distance path currently awaiting review under "Every day life / Sports and recreations". (South West Coast Path)


 * Looking at the GA headings, while I'm there, it does seem a bit strange to have "Geography and places / Geography / Geography". What's at that heading seems to be more like "Geography and places/ Geography/Miscellaneous", which is a perfectly respectable heading, as meaning "within this heading, but cannot be classified in any of the subdivisions under this heading" or some similar wording which I think I remember being used in Dewey decimal classification!  PamD (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes, I agree, and will transfer these changes across to GAN. As for Geography/Geography, I agree, but I dislike "Miscellaneous" sections as they are a refuge for the kind of dumping we've seen under "Parks". It would be much better to use a more specific title. This section is primarily about Geography as a methodology for interpreting the world. Can you think of title which covers the articles listed there? Geometry guy 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Native English speaker
thanks for your message. You assumed a non-native English speaker will not follow the procedure properly, did you? is it true? fortuantely I don't care much this title: Native English Speaker. I am not a native English speaker and I didn't feel proud of it even I am a native English speaker. Coloane (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I assumed nothing. You didn't follow the procedure perfectly, but it takes a while to get used to new processes, and it is easy to make mistakes. Geometry guy 22:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * PS. Many thanks for adding the talk page templates: you saved me a job!

Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)
Thanks for your support, it is much appreciated. Chrisieboy (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just checking the article against the criteria. If you want to show your appreciation, please review a GAN, or comment on another GAR. The system needs editors to do things like this for it to work. Many thanks. Geometry guy 00:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

VPT
This was quite a relief. I was about to start an ANI thread; I thought an admin may have gone rogue. You're right, a watchlist notification or something in that vein would have been nice. Cheers —Cronholm144 23:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As a Knight of the Order, I do my best to serve ;-) Geometry guy 23:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Alec's suggestion
Thanks for your comments at my talk page, where you seconded Alecmconroy's suggestion. I will see what I can do but frankly I don't think I can do a major rewrite. Perhaps a bit by bit change is what I can do. :) Marax (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Good luck with that! Geometry guy 18:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm over-reaching myself ..
I know that I'm probably being overly bold, but what the hell.

Surely you've been tempted to close the Force GAR as a clear renomination? I know that I have anyway. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Math ratings
As you noticed, I have been improving the math ratings tables today. Now there are tables for each individual field, and a field/importance table. Also, if you didn't notice, I have removed the conditional code that tested whether a comments subpage exists. The developers complained about pages like ours using ifexists too many times. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like a fantastic (albeit early :) spring clean of the maths ratings set-up. Is there an on-wiki link where the developer's complained? I'm just curious. Geometry guy 00:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The original thread is, and a more recent post by Tim Starling is . &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This morning I changed WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0/Table to show all the new tables. That page is already linked from the WP 1.0 navbox and seems like a good place to put them.
 * Is the peer review automation discussion going well? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WT:PR: only one other comment so far, but 100% consensus :-). I expect when I actually implement it, discussion will be generated, which is why I am taking my time. Making the instructions clear is quite important. Geometry guy 18:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC) PS. The new ratings tables page is nice!

January 2008 GA Newspaper
Are you planning to continue your ArticleHistory series? Or write about something else? OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't want to write anything more about article history. It would be great if the main article were written by someone different each month, but I'm willing to try to think up something if no one else steps forward. Geometry guy 23:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it will be more reasonable to start volume 2 instead of number 3 for 2008. OhanaUnited<b style="color:green;">Talk page</b>


 * Fine with me, if it is fine with the Ed! Geometry guy 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for moving the peer review to match the article. Can't believe I forgot about it. :) Best regards, Rt . 21:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. This was not a big issue before, but now that that the peer review list is automatically generated, it is essential to move PR pages to match the article name. Geometry guy 21:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Automated peer review
Hi, Gguy; four FAC no less!) FAC listings came up today that were still listed at peer review. I'm unsure how to remove them now, so I've been asking the nominators to remove them, but they don't all do it.  Is removal automated at all (by switching to oldpeerreview), or do I still go through all the old steps to remove?  I hate doing this extra step, but no one else seems to do it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've updated the guidelines on the Peer review page. Basically, switching to oldpeerreview will automatically remove the article from the PR page. However, it doesn't automatically list it on the archive page, so that still needs to be done by hand.
 * If you have comments on making the guidelines clearer, they would be most welcome. Geometry guy 19:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That was my question; I couldn't figure out why nominators were saying they had removed the peer review, but I was still seeing them listed. Thanks, Gguy!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You're most welcome. The PR page is only updated once per hour, so there is a time delay between switching to oldpeerreview, and the automatic removal from the PR page. Geometry guy 21:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I can increase the frequency if one hour is too long. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need for this yet, and it is explained in the guidelines. At some point I will start a thread on the PR page for feedback on the new system, and I'll mention specifically the update frequency. Thanks for the other fixes (and the joke!) Geometry guy 10:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am having some problems editing peer reviews, which I presume is related to the new system. Perhaps you can shed some light upon it. Whenever I try to click the edit link for a given peer review I get the following message:

''You tried to edit a section that does not exist. Since there is no section 1, there is no place to save your edit. Sections may have been removed after you loaded the page; try purge and bypass your browser cache.''

''Return to Template:CF/Requests for peer review. ''

Neither purging nor bypassing cache have had any effect. I can get around this by clicking the direct link on the peerreview template on an article's talk page, but it is hardly ideal. (partial cross post at Wikipedia talk:Peer review) Oldelpaso (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. I think I've fixed it now: it was caused by a change I made yesterday to Template:CF/Requests for peer review. I'll try to be more careful when making such changes in future. Sorry for the inconvenience. Geometry guy 19:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Peer review change
Hi -- hope you had (or are still having) a good holiday season. I noticed that WP:PR now doesn't transclude the peer reviews. Is this a deliberate change? There's just a link to the bot page now. I thought this might be an error of some kind so I'm just checking. Mike Christie (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, just saw the explanation at the PR talk page. Thanks.  Mike Christie (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message anyway. Cheers Geometry guy 18:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Speaking of peer reviews: I noticed that made a slight change to my peer review of the Princess Leia Organa article. I've submitted another article for peer review, and thought that you might like to critique it:
 * Duck Soup. I've listed this article for peer review because, even though I and other editors have contributed much information and references, I'm certain that there are other aspects of this classic film that have yet to be covered. I'd like to hear feedback from you, so that I can get help in improving this (and other Marx Brothers films) quality.
 * If you have the time, it'd be great if you could look over both of those articles and assess their strengths and weaknesses. Thanks, and a Happy New Year to you, Geometry guy! — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 18:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

May I ask a favour?
I've challenged a couple of GA promotions recently, and I've seen a lot more that I've thought were at best marginal. And I got a little bit of bother because I closed the Christianity GAR recently. It's made me wonder whether I'm expecting too much of a GA. I don't think that I am; I'm not expecting FA "perfection", but I have started to wonder who's out of synch.

I know it's an imposition, but would you mind just taking a quick look at Albin of Brechin, a GAN that I put on hold earlier today, and let me know if my review was in your opinion unreasonable, inadequate, or expecting too much? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First off, I think you were right to close the Christianity GAR. If this stopped an effort to improve the article, this is rather sad: it suggests editors care more about silly green dots than improving article quality.
 * As for Albin of Brechin, I found the lead weak (not a good summary), the article vague in many places, and the prose not particularly encyclopedic. I'm not convinced that the sources back up some of the vague assertions about his early life, but I don't have access to them to check. Your review is fine, but you seem to have met a "This is the way we do things in this subject" editor. Well, it's not the way we do things on Wikipedia, especially not for GA quality articles. Stick to your guns, and bon courage. Geometry guy 12:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)