User talk:Geometry guy/Archive 4

Thank you from a drooping Wikipedian

Hi G,

Thanks so much for your help with the Kepler problem in general relativity. My brain is so tired, though; I don't think I've ever had to think this hard. :p The article is still a long way from FAC, but at last I'm beginning to feel affectionate towards it. I don't really like working all alone on an article, so your arrival was very cheering; merci, Votre Eminence! :) I may take a little wiki-break for a few days, though, just to recover. Ta ta and hoping all's well with you, Willow 21:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

PS. Wikipedia will reach 2 million articles on 22 September 2007; mark your calendar! ;)

Hi there, I had composed a message for you in my mind, but have been so busy that I did not have time to post it. So I will pretend I didn't read this, and post it on your talk page anyway. I'm glad you enjoyed my company at KPGR: please don't stay away for long; I will miss you! Geometry guy 21:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

PS. And I guess I will reach 10000 edits on 1 July 2007, but most of them are maths ratings... ;) Geometry guy 21:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Rating for Monty Hall problem

Hi - Monty Hall problem is a featured article. Doesn't this get it a "FA" maths rating? Just out of curiousity - why did you think B+? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rick, G-guy uses AWB to give ratings to article, so he probably didn't see the star. Bplus is the highest rating that one can give to a previously unrated article, so that is what he chose.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 04:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The FA reviewers have sometimes approved an article that the mathematics community would not presently give an "A" rating. Likewise with GA. Perhaps in future the Right Thing will happen, guaranteeing that FA/GA means both technically sound and pretty to look at; but for now that's not always so. (And in case you're wondering, I'm not keen on this article, but I'm also not inclined to get involved with rating/fixing it; it's too much of a "tar baby".) --KSmrq^T 05:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for the curiosity and comments. Yes, I did see the star, but on the grading scheme, FA-Class is for articles which have "received featured article status after peer review, and meet the current criteria for featured articles". I came to this article because the maths rating was not signed and dated, so I looked at the article and read the recent FAR. In my view the latter got side-tracked by irrelevant inline citation arguments and I don't think the article should have passed: in fact I doubt it would survive a good article review at the moment. Now I can't sign a rating I don't agree with, so I changed it, and added my comments to the rating. I do actually quite like the article (it is great for the portal, for example), and the most obvious flaw is pretty easy to fix: see WP:LEAD.

However, this is just my opinion. If someone else believes that the article does currently meet the FA criteria, they are of course free to uprate the maths rating and replace my comments and signature by their own. Geometry guy 10:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I should have read your comment (and the article for that matter) before replying by proxy. On a related note, how goes your signing? I think I am going to tackle E today, as I have become tired of doodling at commons. :)--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 11:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for chipping in anyway. I like my talk page to be a place where friends stop by even when I'm not home :) As for the signing, see Category:Mathematics articles with no comments. There are now less than 200 so they can all be seen on one page. You've done great work with the SVGs. Good luck with E. Geometry guy 11:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to work on the lead (or for anyone else to have a go at it), and any suggestions for improvement are always welcome, but it seems absurd for an FA not to have an FA class rating from a related project. Basically, you're saying your standards are different from community consensus as determined through the FAC (and, in this case, FAR) processes. The two ratings in the mathematics project's grading scheme that are not subjective are FA and GA. In this case, rather than attempt to unilaterally downgrade the article I think a better approach might have been to raise the issues you see on the talk page (or simply fix them). In the future if you're hesitant to "sign" an FA or GA rating, then perhaps you should add the rating but not sign it. Of course, if the mathematics project wants to have its own "FA" sort of rating, that's fine, but then it shouldn't be called FA and shouldn't link to WP:FA.

On a perhaps related note, I don't know how many participants from the mathematics project actively watch Monty Hall problem. It is a fairly difficult article to maintain since it has both the same sort of problem as 0.999... (i.e. many people simply disagree with the mathematically correct conclusion) and the additional problem of being a simple enough problem that everyone has an opinion. I'd welcome help maintaining this article from you and anyone else in the mathematics project. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I can imagine that it is a pain to look after an article like this one. It is on my watchlist for the moment at least.

My point of view on project ratings is slightly different: first, they don't need to be the same for different projects; second, an X-Class Y-Project rating signed by Z to me means "Z believes that this article is at least X-Class quality from the perspective of Project Y". I take your point that my approach wasn't particularly helpful, although it was partly intended as a friendly warning that the article may not meet the criteria. However, I could have done this on the talk page, as you suggest, and indeed more in the manner I did at Talk:Probability theory#Good Article review. Anyway, I've no problem with another editor upgrading the maths rating: it is not like I removed the featured article status. I think it would be a hassle for everyone to take the article again to FAR, so I've no intention to do that. Geometry guy 17:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't come across as belaboring the point, and perhaps you're not going to change your opinion, but I think any project that has a rating scheme that includes FA and GA is pretty much obligated to align itself with community consensus about FA and GA. If project X wants to institute its own rating scheme, that's fine, but I think FA pretty much has to mean "is currently a featured article" (similarly, GA has to mean "is a WP:GA"). If you really think it's deficient enough that it can't be fairly easily fixed, I think you should take it to WP:FAR (and, yes, this would be a hassle but I think it's the right thing to do unless you really are saying the Mathematics project has different standards). The previous FAR was closed about 5 months ago, so enough time has passed that I don't think you'd get flamed for bringing it to FAR again. On the other hand, other than the addition of the large image in the "Solution" section and the addition of the "Why the probablity is 2/3" section I think it's substantially the same as it was when the previous FAR was closed (and it doesn't sound like these additions are what concerns you). In any event, I urge you to think carefully about advocating different standards for different projects. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do take your point about GA and FA (especially) being a community agreed standard, and when a project or project member disagrees with the latest community consensus, it is a sign that something is wrong. One problem is that the community standard is constantly shifting: the standard for FA and GA seems to be getting raised all the time. It struggles me no end when I see an article that I like, but believe doesn't meet the standard for its class. I suppose I should therefore follow the courage of my convictions and take this one to FAR as you suggest, but I recognise my own fallibility, so I have raised the question both with the article and at WT:WPM. One problem is that although I have some recent experience with FAC, I have none with FAR.

I do, however, have some experience with GA/R, which has become pretty exacting recently. I am fairly confident that if I took the article there, and no further edits were made, WP:WIAGA 1b (the lead) and 3b (focus) would both be issues: I guess these correspond to WP:WIAFA 2a and 4. Consequently Bplus class has become for me, as Cronholm suggests, a rating of high praise!

I will think on this, but meanwhile, I would like to thank you for reacting in a very friendly and constructive way to my unconventional intervention at an article which you have been watching over and which is constantly attracting problems. I was not surprised to learn that you are an admin: you definitely display all the right qualities! Geometry guy 21:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hodge manifold

Hey G-guy, you wouldn't happen to have a copy of the Proceedings of the International of Mathematicians volume 1. pages 182-191 titled Topological invariants of algebraic variety by W.V.D. Hodge would you? I am trying to write the article Hodge manifold and I would love to get a hold of the source. Cheers--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 15:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help this time! Good luck! Geometry guy 15:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

PS. Following his antics, I think we ought to enroll Oleg in the Knightly Order so that he starts taking his duties more seriously ;) Which position do you think would suit him best?

I can use the secondary sources on JSTOR, so no problem. As for Oleg, Knight, Calculator, and Artist(not yet made) seem appropriate. However, his position as an admin makes me lean towards knight.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 16:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestions, but when I thought about it, all my intuition went towards Sage. For who else do we turn to, when we need advice in our mission? I hope you liked my welcome, anyway. Geometry guy 20:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Be careful with the citation details, such as the exact name of the paper and page numbers. Some variants found:

• W.V.D. Hodge, "The topological invariants of algebraic varieties", Proc. Internat. Congress Mathematicians (Cambridge, 1950), 1, Amer. Math. Soc. (1952) pp. 181–192
• Hodge, W. V. D. "The topological invariants of algebraic varieties". Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Cambridge, MA, 1950, vol. 1, pp. 182–192.
• W.V.D. Hodge, The topological invariants of algebraic varieties, in Proceedings ICM 1950, AMS, Providence, RI, 1952, 181–192.
• W.V.D. Hodge. The topological invariants of algebraic varieties, Proc. Intern. Congr. Math. (Cambridge, Mass., Aug. 30-Sept. 6, 1950) 1, 182-192 (1952).

According to MacTutor, the full name of the author is William Vallance Douglas Hodge; I never knew that. I sought web sources for the paper/proceedings to no avail. --KSmrq^T 21:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked as well, I found that source cited here page 374, citation number three. I also found Hodge's biography in JSTOR and I plan on using that if nothing else. The Sage was a good idea G-guy, and clever wikilinking as always :) .

Thanks! It seems to me that KSmrq is demonstrating all the qualities that demand enrollment in the knightly order. What say you Cronholm? (And KSmrq, if you are here, pretend you didn't see the internal machinations of the Eminence grise ;) Geometry guy 23:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Got it, Hodge manifolds are just restricted Kähler manifolds and the term has just fallen out of favor. On a side note Hodge was a very interesting guy, I am going to work on his bio a bit. A recognition for Ksmrq is overdue, calculator or knight seem the obvious choices, but I leave it up to you discretion Sir Geometrath. :)--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 11:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I use the term Hodge manifold in two closely related ways:

• A compact complex manifold equipped with an integral Kahler class.
• A compact complex manifold equipped with an ample line bundle.

Here an integral Kähler class is a cohomology class in the integral second cohomology H^2(M,Z) whose image in H^2(M,R) contains a Kahler form. One definition of an ample line bundle is a complex line bundle whose first Chern class is a Kahler class (it is always integral). Since a line bundle is essentially determined by its first Chern class, the two definitions are nearly the same.

So a Hodge manifold is nearly the same thing as a Kahler manifold whose Kahler form has an integral cohomology class: it isn't quite the same thing, because you have to choose the Kahler form first. A Hodge manifold is also nearly the same thing as a projective variety, because an ample line bundle can also be defined as a line bundle which defines a Kodaira embedding of the manifold into projective space. However, to get a particular embedding you have to choose a particular (and sufficiently high) tensor power of the line bundle.

Enough for a separate article? Maybe... Geometry guy 12:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

PS. I created a new Artisan class for the order, for those who show fine skills of craftsmanship in their articles. I can't find a good image though: Leonardo da Vinci is too modern. Any suggestions?

"In particular his paper (A special type of Kahler manifold. Proc. Lond. math. Soc. (3) 1, 104-117.) on Kahler manifolds of restricted type led, a few years later, to Kodaira's final characterization of projective algebraic manifolds. The manifolds singled out by Hodge in "A special type of Kahler manifold" were, for a few years, known as 'Hodge manifolds' and it is ironic that Kunihiko Kodaira's proof that Hodge manifolds are algebraic should have led to their disappearance."

This was published in 1975, so if anything this source is out of fashion not you. :) Perhaps a longer than usual dab page for Hodge manifold that would give a little background and sent the reader on his way. I will go to commons and look around for a suitable pic.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 12:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

GA/R Holocaust denial

I didn't even see it. Emboldened recommendations in longer comments tend to blend in... as it did in this case for me. :p I would think it be more appropriate in those cases that the recommendation be included in bold at the beginning. In shorter comments, it's not so much of an issue, but here you have several paragraphs and the recommendation is near the end. LaraLove^T/_C 16:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and I take your point. I've clarified this in the summary in a similar way to the other cases where it is not immediately obvious where the comment comes from. I hope that helps. Geometry guy 16:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The relation between chaos theory, systems and systems theory

Hi, I made some remarks and placed a questions on the talk:chaos theory page, refering to you changing the importance-rate towards the WikiProject. Maybe you can take a look overthere and give your opinion. Thank you. - Mdd 19:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit stuck between replying here or there, since I can't really answer your question, but my comments are relevant to the ratings. I will reply further over there. Geometry guy 19:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your respons. I moved some of the discussion to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Systems because assessment is not yet a big issue yet. Talking about it on our WikiProject talk page will maybe attract some attention from the other WikiProject members to this subject. Thanks again. - Mdd 23:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome: good luck! Geometry guy 23:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Script rating on Henri Lebesgue

Hi Geometry Guy,

I recently added an infobox(+the WP Biography template and a BannerShell) to the Henri Lebesgue article so have had it on my watchlist. I noticed a change yesterday with commentary that it was providing (via Script) a B-class rating as part of the WP Biography project. Looking at the change log the rating was also applied to the maths project section. I've discussed this briefly with modifier and the unintended math rating change may be due to a problem in the script. I speculate this may be due to my embedding the projects in a BannerShell. The discussions can be found here and here.

However the discussion lead me to look at the rating criteria applied by both the Biography project and the Math project. There are minor differences. I noted the entry you made on Henri Lebesgue ratings commentary on 2007-06-17 suggesting that secondary references were needed. Looking at the math rating criteria the absence of refernces alone would not preclude the article from B status, it would preclude B+ though. I'm not too familiar with Lebesgue's work though and it could well be that relevant factual information is missing from the article.

To summarise. I believe there has been an unintended rerating of your quality assessment on the Henri Lebesgue page. However I think there is a reasonable case for the modified rating (B) to stand.

I've not been contributing to wikipedia for long, and don't have the comparative scope of examining many other Math articles to give an appropriate relative rating. Because of this I'll defer to whatever Math rating you think appropriate for this article. If you have the time perhaps you could consider Henri Lebesgue once more and change/revert the Math rating if appropriate.

Regards, Asperal 13:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. At a glance, I would be tempted to keep the B-Class rating: I can be a bit stingy sometimes! However, the article does have more problems than I noticed previously with its structure and content, so maybe Start-Class was a good choice after all.

However, more importantly, the image in the infobox probably should be changed, as it may be in copyright. The image was downloaded from the MacTutor site, whose copyright information is essentially useless (it only says that it believes that "most" of the images in the entire site are in the public domain). Now, looking at the picture, Lebesgue could be over 50 here, which means the photo could have been taken in 1925 or later. Unless there is other information, copyright for a photograph belongs to the photographer, not the subject, so unless one can prove that the photographer died before 1947, this image may not be in the public domain!

The obvious solution is to use the other photo at the MacTutor site, in which Lebesgue looks to be in his thirties. That one is much less likely to be challenged, especially if it can be dated. Geometry guy 14:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

/Comments

I only did that for Talk:Srinivasa Ramanujan/Comments. I don't think the pages are really necessary. People can just as easily look at the talk page itself, or in the talk page history. For example, it says you evaluated the page, but if you look at the talk page history it shows that Konstable was the last person to evaluate the articles (he did the GAC evaluation). Nishkid64 (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh okay. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Symplectic moving

Hi! Before you ask, I moved the Category:Symplectic geometry articles back to Category:Symplectic topology before I saw your comments as to why it was being done. The reason I did is b/c I'm keeping an eye on Special:Wantedcategories, and these popped up all of a sudden. And the geometry category shows as having been deleted some time ago. So the most appropriate solution seemed to be to move them back. If you want, create the Symplectic geometry category, and I can move them back. But it's best to create categories before moving articles into them, I believe. Hope to not have freaked you out to much. -Ebyabe 01:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, nevermind, I created the category and moved them all back. :) -Ebyabe 14:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. As discussed at WT:WPM and your talk page, the reason I didn't create the category was because I thought it might be better to move Category:Symplectic topology. Anyway, it is a pretty minor issue and I've made Category:Symplectic topology into a subcat instead. Geometry guy 14:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Arithmetic-geometric mean

Hi. I wonder why you assigned high importance to this article? To the best of my knowledge, it is little more than mathematical trivia. If you know that this is not the case, you are welcome to share your thoughts. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"High" may be an overestimate, but I think it is a bit more than trivia. I seem to recall that it was pretty important in the theory of elliptic integrals because the AGM sequence converges so quickly. Anyway, feel free to update the rating as you think appropriate. Geometry guy 14:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I have changed it to mid. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Systems announcement

Hi, I (relatively fast) archived our discussion about assessment. Now I made an announcement about it in the WikiProject Systems with your name mentioned and a reference: a kind of reminder. If you want to correct or add some thing to that announcement, please do. Thank you - Mdd 10:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a brief reply to your question to the archive. If you would like me to edit Template:WikiProject Systems to use the word "priority" instead of "importance", let me know here: it is best not to continue the discussion in an archive. Geometry guy 15:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've moved the discussioon item back to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Systems talkpage and added a respons, meanly to unravel my latest ideas about this. As I said I have to sleep on it. Also thanks for that clear instruction. If I'm going to have any problems with it I'll let you know. - Mdd 21:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about it, and I think we should start using the indication "low" some more. Thanks for bringing that to our attention - Mdd 00:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak?

Hey G-guy! Did you enjoy your wikibreak? --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 20:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't exactly a planned wikibreak, but yes, it was fine. Did you enjoy yours? Geometry guy 21:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I enjoyed it immensely, one of my last breaks before the beginning of the school year. I hope the unplanned event you alluded to didn't put you out in any way.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 21:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing unplanned IRL: only my temporary loss of interest in WP was unplanned. I'm not sure yet I will recover the interest completely, but lets see. Your wikibreak seems to consist of two days when you didn't fill a page with your contributions! You are a star. Geometry guy 23:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What is this "IRL" blasphemy? There is no Real Life, there is only Wikipedia! ;-D

Actually, it says something interesting about the human mind that a world of text can be so consuming. No touch, no taste, no smell, no sound, no physical movement, and sight is impoverished; yet look how many hours of how many lives it absorbs. --KSmrq^T 04:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This kind of activity is draining though. A good break every once in a while is very important. Heaven forbid you burn out (I am a touch worried). I can start rating articles again to take the burden off of you. I think AWB drains a little bit of life out of the user every time it is used.

As for my wikibreak... I had planned on staying away entirely, but I found myself sneaking to the computer to check my watchlist. :)--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 04:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. @ KSmrq, sorry I haven't been much help on Integral lately, I feel like my ability to contribute positively stopped after the Lebesgue affair. :( However, if you want me to help with Loom91, I can appeal to him on his talk page as a semi-neutral third party.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 04:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy sevens day to all you numerologists! :) I do know what you mean, G-guy; it's only natural that enthusiasm should ebb and flow like the tides. For myself, I've been feeling a kind of writer's block these past few weeks, ever since that initial burst of activity on our latest article. Of course, I've had tons of things to do IRL, but I sometimes find myself in front of my computer with lots to say, but having to prospect for words, instead of them descending on me like a flock of doves, paragraphs poised like lightning on the tips of my fingers. :) Partly it's having too many articles on my mind at once, partly it's being depressed that everyone considers us "essentially trivial" despite our best efforts to the contrary, partly it's...I'm not sure what, maybe tides? ;) But I feel as though I'm recovering now; I'm even beginning to understand gravitational radiation. :) It helps to be back among friends. Wishing you all good things and hoping that your boat rises again with the next swell, Willow 12:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's good to meet a friend of Willow. Tim Vickers 19:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all for stopping by and for all your kind and stimulating words. It seems that anabolic steroid is turning my tide of enthusiasm for the time being, but I might also be tempted to try out trench warfare (on the side of the allied forces of course), lightning conducting, or even masochistic soul destruction for the good of all humanity. Geometry guy 19:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, Geometry Guy -- i myself am losing interest here, and with the upcoming season being a busy one I'll likely not be coming back for a few years. Generally, i will be contributing sporadically when i can be bothered but after receiving so much shit here that was simply unnecessary, while fencing with the maniacal megalomania of principally australopithecal editors, i feel like I'm so far abstracted from teaching that i've dropped into the role of an intermediary, mediator and babysitter. Some people in the world cannot accept or understand philanthropy because the foundations of society lay heavily on making money off others; to me that is abhorrent thinking. There is no damn cabal, esotericism or group-anarchy, we're just sporadic individuals converging towards the same goal.

Enjoy editing articles, see you some other time. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 21:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Petit cadeau pour l'eminence grise

Ummmmmm, so there's this theorem that makes all kinds of pretty pictures when you look at it with your mind's eye... Just a blurb but hoping you like it, Willow 23:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Geometry girl! I needed a nice present... Geometry guy 00:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

TPON

I've tagged The Power of Nightmares for a copyedit per the recommendations of GAR. Do you think it can still pass with the tag up? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. The tag won't help, but hopefully LaraLove, myself, or someone else will find time to give it a quick copyedit. Do you have any friends/colleagues/significant others whom you could ask to read through the article? It just needs a read-through by a native English speaker who is not too close to the current content. Geometry guy 00:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I noticed that your edits were impressive and so I've decided to award you this Editor's Barnstar! Wikidudeman (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated WDM! It is always a pleasure to help an article retain its GA status. Some of this information could be used to improve the testosterone article, which I believe you have also been interested in doing. I made a small start anyway. Geometry guy 16:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on the award! Speaking of those, that's why I came by. I just now noticed your comments on my talk page after my Cherry Impact Event Award. I was going to archive it when I noticed it. I've been so out of it lately. So sorry to respond so late. Anyway, yes, haha, we do make a good team at GA/R! Congrats again on the award. You deserve it. LaraLove^T/_C 07:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lara! Speaking of GA/R, there are a few which need archiving now. Did you look again at the Pokemon articles? Do you agree with my view that Mudkip is an outlier here? Chrysler Sunbeam is another one that needs archiving. If I were to do it, I'd probably go for "no consensus", and hence the article would remain unlisted. Do you agree? Geometry guy 12:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I bet you never thought you would type "Did you look again at the Pokémon articles?" in all of your days before you got here to WP :) --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 12:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm prouder of "Mudkip is an outlier". 18 edits to go... Geometry guy 15:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(←) You know, I suck at checking back on talk pages. It's terrible. Yea. I don't like archiving no consensus. I'd rather let them sit until some more recommendations come in. That's just me, I guess. LaraLove 03:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review of Evolutionarily Stable Strategy

Hi there, one of the editors of this article got in touch and was asking about how to improve this article back up to GA level. I was wondering if you had time to add some specific points he could deal with to your GA review. I've added some myself, but I may not have covered all the points you were concerned about in your review. All the best Tim Vickers 16:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I finally added some more specific details. Let me know if further clarifications would help, or you think my comments miss the point in any way. Geometry guy 18:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Historic Michigan Boulevard District

I'm doing the review of this article for GAC and have put it on hold because I don't feel it is broad enough. The author says he isn't sure there is anything else to write. I was hoping you could look over it and let me know. It's short (about 15kb), so it shouldn't take long. I feel like there could be more on it's history, the buildings and how they've affected the city and such. Regards, LaraLove 03:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology

Can you take a look at the parapsychology article for me and give me your opinion, fixing whatever problems you see? I along with a few others recently spent a while rewriting the entire article in lieu of recent edit wars and arbitration and I believe we've made great progress. I'd appreciate if you could review it for us. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have point of view concerns about the article. As this has been a topic of much heated debate, I think it is best if I stay away for now, but I see Lara has taken a look, which is good. Geometry guy 20:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Biographical project notification

In case you are interested: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Sortkey and birth/death categories standardization project. Carcharoth 13:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Georg Cantor

I did some restructuring on poor Georg, added a new section, etc etc etc & shipped him off to Peer Review. If you know of any eyes (of both mathematicians and copy editors) that could look it over, that would be a Good Thing. Later! Ling.Nut 19:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Erm, I think it's done. I mean the whole thing, aside from the inevitable copy editing. Ling.Nut 18:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! I've mentioned your progress and the peer review to a friend. Good luck with the prelims. Geometry guy 20:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent) hey, I have a self-centered question. There was a lot of good content on the page before I came aboard, but... I've put a lot of work into the article.. added a lot to the WP:LEDE, added a new section, added content to existing sections, did some nontrivial restructuring, added lots of refs and I have a userpage with even more refs in case anything is challenged.. you can compare the diff of the current version to the one just before I came aboard.. I didn't do all that work, of course, but did a major portion.. so I was wondering, when it gets FA a month or so from now, can I put {{User Featured Article|Georg Cantor}} on my user page? Is there someone I should ask a by-your-leave? Thanks.. Ling.Nut 23:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

..don't miss my question above... Oh by the way, the peer review results were very positive. Another mile marker passed, Georg is moving forward! Ling.Nut 02:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The short answer: you can put whatevery you like on your user page! The long answer: you certainly deserve much of the credit for bringing Georg Cantor to its current state. If you look through the edit history you will find that a lot of the original material was added by a particular anon (202.36.179.65). When describing your contributions on your user page, it looks even more cool if you acknowledge the contributions of others as well. Geometry guy 12:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I just dropped a note to Pmanderson but I didn't mention the template 'cause I seem to remember that he and I used to fight an awful lot back in the day ;-) .. some other names I saw a lot of in the hist. were one-note pro-Jewish... it's not a big deal.. but.. I do like to have something to hang on the wall after so much work... Ling.Nut 13:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep the place clean, i'll be busy for a while.

Hey, Geometry Guy! Just thought I'd post to say I'm going to offend again and go for another, somewhat smaller qualification (Degree) in Biology and Physiology part-time whilst working teaching chemistry/maths. So, i'll probably not be very active (I haven't been actually for the past while) for a while seen as there's a fair chunk of work to be done :-) Still, keep the mathematics articles clean, valiant sir knight! :-) ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 21:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Pan's Labyrinth GA review

You commented on the insufficiency of this articles lead. I believe that I have fixed the lead, could you tell me if you agree? Atropos 20:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I commented further at GA/R, in case you didn't see. The lead isn't perfect, but overall you have done a very impressive job! Geometry guy 20:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Georg cantor WP:FAC redux...

• WP:FAC redux: do you think anyone would object to FAC'ing it? I think it's totally ready for the onslaught... Ling.Nut 15:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked it over yesterday. It looks good to me, so go for it. Geometry guy 15:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Cross your fingers and toes. Ling.Nut 16:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template_talk:ArticleHistory#Gacat

Apparently there are too many lazy and/or stupid people working the GA project for SandyGeorgia to bother to improve AH to properly list the reviews and outcomes. No wonder the push for the use of AH keeps getting reverted off of the GAC page... or GAN rather, for AH. It doesn't adequately list all of the outcomes for those things relating to GA, yet s/he makes these rude comments about how GA projects are broken. We're trying to improve our processes. Too bad others prefer to leave theirs broken. LaraLove 04:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think SandyGeorgia has been rather overwhelmed recently by events at FAR/FAC, including some personal attacks made against her, so I would not take it too personally if she is a bit snappy right now. I am impressed by the project you have started to improve the GA organization. As for the ArticleHistory template, nobody owns it, so if I don't receive any further objections to my proposal on the talk page, I will go ahead and implement the topic parameter: I've done quite a bit of template work, and this will be quite easy by comparison. If you can think of any other improvements that could be made to the template, let me know. Geometry guy 17:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any other changes at the moment, but I would like to know how to edit templates. I look forward to seeing the changes you make so that I can (hopefully) get some experience with that in the future. The more I learn how to do, the smoother an RfA will go in the future. LaraLove♥ 03:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I made slightly more substantial changes than was strictly necessary because I wanted to make the topic parameter more robust. It is now case insensitive, and the full name can be used as well as the abbreviation (if these are different). Take a look at {{GA/Topic}} if you want to see a simple example of a template in action. Geometry guy 14:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (Holocaust denial article lead)

This is the first time I've left a message on a Wikipedia user's talk page. I was so positively impressed by your suggestions for the "Holocaust denial" article that I had to leave a comment to you. The original opening lead for the article, immediately branding the concept as anti-semetic, jarred me in some inexplicable way. After reading your analysis of the lead, I was astonished to realize that you had exactly described my sentiments more precisely than I myself could have elucidated:

The problem with applying a label in the first sentence, no matter how many sources are given, is that it effects the way the reader engages with the rest of the material. They might wonder if there is an agenda, or feel annoyed by arguments from authority. [After a simple reorganization of text with no loss of information] the response is much more likely to be "I'm not surprised!" than "What's the agenda here?".

Yours is truly incisive insight into an obviously emotionally-charged issue. I've learned an important lesson about how I, and others, react to the presentation style of an argument and to the over-eager use of labels. Indeed, avoiding provocation of the reader/audience into a "what's the agenda?" stance is much more important and subtle that I would have imagined. I can only hope that I, Wikipedia, and humanity in general can improve our rhetorical skills along these lines.

Thanks again.

I am somewhat at a loss for words to reply to your heart warming message. Thank you so much for taking the trouble to come here to express your appreciation. It was very rewarding to find that my comment immediately resolved a dispute that had been going on from some time. I have recently been trying to express a similar point about the Freemasonry article. Freemasons form, I suppose, a much misunderstood group, which has also been subjected to misinformation and prejudice. Consequently, there is a natural desire to "set the record straight" and present the "truth" about Freemasonry. Unfortunately, this approach doesn't work: the article comes across as being defensive, and immediately raises the "agenda" question in the reader's mind. In this context, I find your final note of hopeful optimism very inspirational. Thank you. Geometry guy 17:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If a magician says, "Here I have an ordinary deck of playing cards", what is the first thought that pops into your mind? Same thing with writing articles: "Show, don't tell." Why raise suspicion? Shakespeare put it thus: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." (Hamlet, act III, scene 2) But it requires wisdom, experience, self-control — all commodities in short supply. :-) --KSmrq^T 20:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly: and "show don't tell" is also one of the finest (and shortest) policy paragraphs on Wikipedia. Geometry guy 20:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

cantor

• do you think things are still hosed? Ling.Nut 19:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What does that mean? Do you mean, do I think the FAC is going to be okay? If so, then yes, but I think the mathematics needs restructuring, particularly as some of it is rather too close to the Mactutor biography and the online history of set theory. Geometry guy 19:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant, do you still think the content is bad.. which apparently you do. I had no idea the math stuff was in poor shape, sorry. And I was the one who put the Baconian conspiracy shtuff in the place you didn't like. :-) Ling.Nut 21:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know: I checked the edit history. You made a lot of very good changes to the math stuff, but there is still a hang-over from early formulations based on Mactutor. I am fixing these now. Geometry guy 21:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Study

I’m not gonna check my watchlist for a couple weeks, but will log in once a day to look for messages. Drop a line on my talk if Georg needs my help. Later! Ling.Nut 02:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

ArticleHistory and topic

Hi Geometry guy. Thanks for the quick response on topic, both for arguing the case for the change and doing the change. I hope this will clear up one of Good Article's process wrinkles, and maybe promote a little peace between the Good Article and Featured Article crowds (I have been told, from time to time, the odd rumor that we are working on the same encyclopedia. how quaint...). Any issues I come across I'll post to GA topic. Take care — Gosgood 13:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A prerequisite for harmony is interaction, so hopefully this new area of overlap will help. Thanks for stopping by! Geometry guy 16:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

belated apology

..it suddenly occurred to me tonight that you may have developed whiplash from my earlier about-face re Georg... I was all hot to take it to FAC, then did a 180 and said it was a non-starter.. you might have felt side-swiped.. I apologize.. Ling.Nut 03:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't bat an eyelid :) Geometry guy 10:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

..for you and Trovatore, as per Willow

Willow's remarks do sound a bit familiar in tone & content; I may have raised similar concerns previously, though perhaps not in direct relation to Cantor. Great minds think alike, and so do ours. :-)

But that's nether here nor there... I could see an additional paragraph written by you and Trovatore, to address the "So What?" question. To wit:

1. Cantor proved the set of all real numbers was nondenumerable.
2. This showed the existence of infinite sets of different magnitudes
3. So what?
4. Cantor started set theory (loosely speaking).. what did he contribute that others had not, which made set theory possible? Why was it impossible before cantor?

I can find some general quotes to throw in the para. We can invoke the scientific cite guidelines for low-density references/cites. :-). BUt such a par would ave to be carefully written.

Thanks! Ling.Nut 11:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Set theory was possible before Cantor: the concept of a set is a rather elementary one and had been used implicitly since the beginnings of mathematics. However, before Cantor, no one realised that set theory had any nontrivial content. Before Cantor, there were only finite sets (easy to understand) and "the infinite" (a subject more for philosophy than mathematics). By proving that there are (infinitely) many possible sizes for infinite sets, Cantor established that set theory was not trivial, and it needed to be studied. He then set about (excuse the pun) thoroughly studying it. This was a remarkable achievement. Geometry guy 12:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning the achievement; :-) was instead saying that something quite similar to what you just wrote should be in the article. Ling.Nut 12:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

PS ditto for transfinite numbers.. he's known for two things, according to G-G: transfinite numbers, and sets of points. One para that answers the "So What?" question in a way that intelligent young undergrads.. freshmen, even .. could understand.. then you're home free IMHO. Ling.Nut 12:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I know: I was just providing you with the information you need to write the paragraph yourself, since I am busy right now. Geometry guy 14:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent) ...that's funny — I was trying to pass the hot potato to you! Tag, you're it! :-) Ling.Nut 14:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

PS what about transfinites? Ling.Nut 14:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

please double-check!

• [1] Ling.Nut 17:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Checked and copyedited. I think the middle two paragraphs should now be merged into the set theory subsection. I may do that myself, as part of the treatment of withdrawal symptoms. Thanks for the kind remarks below. Geometry guy 14:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)