User talk:Geometry guy/Archive 5

Hi G-guy,

Ach, this is a bitter and tragic day for the encyclopedia. I sincerely hope that it wasn't anything on-wiki that made you come to this decision... and you have my heartfelt best wishes and blessings, wherever life may lead you!!

Sincerely, Ling.Nut 23:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? You mustn't leave me! It's not a team if it's just me!  :( Lara♥Love 04:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll always have Paris. And you still have a teammate. Geometry guy 14:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaa. Ugh. What's going on? Is it wiki stuff that's running you off? Did you get burned out? It won't be the same without you. Homestarmy doesn't share the same vision for GA that we do. :*/ Lara♥Love 17:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, my departure is RL, not wiki, related, hence the sadness. I hope you can carry on our shared vision with confidence, because it is right. Geometry guy 18:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I liked very much version of your signature with the dark purple contribs heart that you left on this page.

I'll change it back if you promise to stay. Lara♥Love 19:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Geometry guy,

I too feel tempted to tempt you to stay with something beautiful enough. I don't think you can know how much you are treasured here, how rare your gifts. But I would not keep you here if you needed or wanted to be elsewhere; I cannot be so selfish. I feel as though my best friend has loaned me a pearl necklace for a party, which I must return with good grace and thanks. I wish that I were better prepared, that I could tell you how much you'll be missed, but I'm grateful that I at least had the chance to say goodbye. :( Fond thoughts pursue you through this world and the other, and I'll smile thinking of our next meeting :) Willow 13:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...looks like we made it! Ling.Nut 03:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Good work. Lara♥Love 04:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the kind words, and many congrats on the Cantor FA. Geometry guy 13:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you stopped by. :) Lara♥Love 17:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are checking in once in a while, I take it as a good sign. Whatever has pulled you away in real life or pushed you away in wiki life, I hope you and your friends and your family are well. You have already done a great deal of good in your time here so far, both in creating good articles and creating good attitudes. Should you reach a point in your life where you wish to spend more time working on Wikipedia again (and assuming I'm still around), I'd like that. In any event, thanks for being here, and best wishes. --KSmrq^T 17:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks K! Your kind words ("three cheers and one cheer more?") mean a lot to me. I chose my wikibreak banner with care ("he's hardly ever on wi-ki"). Making a positive contribution to Wikipedia is very therapeutic, so I'm bound to check in from time to time. Geometry guy 11:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you made changes to the FAC and FAR templates; did you run those by Gimmetrow? GimmeBot uses those categories for many different things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They won't effect any bot usage: I just wrapped the categories in a conditional so that only talk pages get categorized. Geometry guy 16:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... with lots of proposed changes (by me) for improving the GA project. This could go fantastically, or I could get ripped apart for it. Either way, I hope you'll drop by and weigh in. WP:GAPQ is the place. Proposals are on the talk page. Lara♥Love 06:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me locate the source of the claim that a unitary rep is equivalent to its dual rep? Thank you. 69.124.52.230 04:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Alex[reply]

Is it? I thought it was only equivalent to its conjugate dual rep. Geometry guy 19:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Geometry Guy. Orthogonal representations(genuinely, as opposed to up to equivalence)really are self-dual, but genuinely unitary representations are their own conjugate duals (I say this mainly for the benefit of the person posing the original question).

Messagetolove 20:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how sorely we miss you, your friends here want you to wing your way through the amber sky, however it's best for you. I'm sure that I speak for many; go with our blessings and kind wishes and come back when you can! :) Willow 20:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Willow. I knew I could count on you for a touching message and a beautiful and appropriate image. It seems I am becoming grayer and grayer, but it is hard to stay away from a place where there are such warm people as yourself. Geometry guy 22:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So how are you? Feeling better, worse, about the same? Any hopes of a full-fledged return in the near future? Great changes with the GA project. You'd be proud. More issues with PMAnderson, but on a much smaller scale. And more changes to come. Thanks for your participation in at least one of the discussions. There's so much going on, I don't know what's what right now! Your presence and participation is missed. <3 Lara♥Love 05:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine. I've been impressed by the progress on GA related stuff and was happy to chip in to a couple of discussions, including Balloonman's well deserved RfA. I still have no plans to return to substantial editing though, sorry. I hope all is well with you, and good luck with the classes! Geometry guy 20:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi G-guy, hope all is well in your busy RL! Just dropped by to share some good news Still looking forward to hearing good news from you (viz., that you are back in action here in wikiworld!) -- Ling.Nut 18:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Ling! I'm sure it was well deserved. Geometry guy 20:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your message on my talk page, but I wanted to post here my decision to remove the heart from my sig completely until your return. I'd also like to point out that I, in my sig, am now wearing black. With that said, when you return, you can pick the color of my heart. LaraLove 03:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your warm messages here and on your talk page, and also for the barnstar below. I'm especially glad that I brightened your day. As for the signature, I feel a Billy Joel moment coming on: "Don't go changin'..." to try and please me :-) In case you forgot, your sig is great, no need to go into morning! ;)

I would say more, but Paris is calling us... Geometry guy 22:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you: I guess Wannabe Kate has her uses :-) But I don't deserve any honours for the Portal: to save the thing from death, all I did was cut and paste from the featured articles used in the previous year. It will soon die again, so I suppose I may be back... ;) Geometry guy 22:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be beyond fantastic if you came back. If you need to talk about what ails you, my email is accessible from my user page header. :) LaraLove 04:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, you may not be so keen for me to come back if you knew that I disagreed with some of your GA ideas :) Thanks for the offer of support, anyway: I guess at some point I should enable my own Wikipedia email, but I have always preferred open communication here. Geometry guy 23:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes things are better left in private, but if you need to talk and want everyone to know it, I'm here for you on my talk page as well. :) As far as you disagreeing with my ideas, that's fine. Sometimes I need a different perspective on things. I'm most certainly not always right. Regarding the GAC vs GAN discussion, my proposal was for the sake of consistency. It did not even occur to me ALL the stuff that would have to be changed. It also did not occur to me to just rename WP:GAC. Personally, that seems like a better idea. Bonus: I don't have to rename by GAN reviews subpage. :D LaraLove 01:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lara, you are a star. Actually, I had in mind something else I disagree with: I agree with your quest for consistency. Now we have to see if WP:GAC buys the rename idea. Anyway, glad to see your Wikimood has improved! Geometry guy 16:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, User:Phaedriel helped with my wikimood. Now, what is it that you disagree with me on? LaraLove 17:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is blessed to have her. Actually my point of disagreement seems to be not just with you, but most of the folk at Wikipedia:Good articles at the moment. I guess I had better have good arguments and explain them clearly on the talk page. In a nutshell: I think putting the green dot on article pages is a very bad idea. It has the potential to undermine all the things we/you have achieved at WP:GAR and prevent GA becoming a better process than FA for raising article quality. Geometry guy 18:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to nominate the Anabolic steroid article for Featured article once again. It's gone a long way even since it's last FA nomination and is very stable and looks great. I thought I'd get your opinion prior to nominating it again just to ensure that it succeeds. What do you think? Would you support it? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had another look at it, and I agree it is in great shape. Let me know when you nominate it, and hopefully, even though I am on Wikibreak, I will find a moment to comment. Geometry guy 22:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the community, I hope you're well. I just want to drop by and say thanks for helping with the math articles that I examined during GA sweeps, which esculated beyond what I first thought and some members trying to boycott GA, and got me out of a tough spot. Thanks again. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and you are most welcome: these things happen and I am always happy to diffuse a situation. In reviewing this matter, I did notice one comment of yours that I wanted to mention to you: "Please note that Wikipedia articles are intended for normal audience." I disagree with this, because Wikipedia is for everyone, not just Joe Average. One of its goals is to encapsulate all knowledge. I tend to think of WP as a nested family of encyclopedias rather than a single encyclopedia. That means that articles on more specialized matters will inevitably have a more specialized audience. I agree however, that each article should be made as broadly accessible as possible given its context.

Thanks for your good wishes, anyway. I'm afraid that for me this is just a brief antiwikibreak to help out GA/R. I'm sure it won't be the last one, though! Geometry guy 20:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good gracious Geometry guy,

I am so relieved and happy! :) I always wanted you to do what you wanted, regardless of why; and I also wanted the others to stop cajoling you and respect your choices. But after you wrote "I am becoming grayer and grayer", I foolishly started imagining that you had been diagnosed with a terrible progressive disease, and wanted to spend your remaining days with family or doing something important, rather than edit Wikipedia. I wanted to write you privately about it but couldn't, so I was just fretting and stewing in dejection. Maybe it was silly, and I'm sorry for that, but I just wanted you to know how happy I was that you're OK. A constant friend, transitivity and reciprocity without identity, Willow 22:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry that I misled you, Willow. I should have enabled my email. Friendship with you is clearly mutual and I value it very much. I am fine, not very happy, but fine, and have appreciated the love of those who "cajol" as well as those who would let me be. Thank you Willow, you are special. I hope all is well with you. Geometry guy 22:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't mislead me at all — it was only my overly gothic imagination, which makes me feel a little silly. I'm terribly glad you're fine and wish you every merriment for the "happy" part, too. As for me, I've been trying to fit 75 hours of work and pleasure into 24-hour days; sadly, I've had no success so far, but I have high hopes for a magical trick that packs large things into small spaces without deforming them. ;) The harvest has been pretty good, and my second crop of raspberries is still going strong — yummy! :D I've lots yet to do, though, so keep your fingers crossed that the frost comes late this year! I'm also trying to finish two scarves for a charity, and I've started taking classes one night a week. The leaves here are still green, but I'm already looking forward to the beautiful leaves of fall — leaves much to be desired. ;) Willow 09:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was that your doing? If so, further reason why you are amazing and invaluable! LaraLove 13:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered when someone would notice :) Yes, I've long been annoyed by the GA/R shortcut, so I had a look at "What links here" and discovered that the active links to WP:GAR were all meant for Good Article Review. So, what the fuck, I just went ahead and changed it: it was so obviously the right thing to do. The abuse reports folk seem to be happy with WP:GTAR, and I've had no complaints from WikiProject:Canada Roads either. Yay. Geometry guy 18:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you! And why the hell would WProject Canada Roads have a problem with it? lol LaraLove 12:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, known only to WP:Canada Roads, WP:GTAR was previously an alternative shortcut to WP:GHR. Geometry guy 19:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding your recent comments, are you sure it's only people who are supposed to be nominees? For example, films are often referred to as nominees. And if nominees is poor English, would nominations also be poor for the same reason? I know it's not a big deal, but if we're going to change the name, we might as well choose the right one now, to reduce the chance of needing another change later on. Epbr123 10:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Nomination" is fine, it can refer to anything. I wouldn't go so far as to say "nominee" is poor English, just not great, because words ending in -ee tend to be people. I agree that the word is often used for films and other things. I'll check again in a larger dictionary. Geometry guy 10:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to your sweeps reviews and comments made here, could you list your issues with the articles on the article talk pages in order to allow them time to fix those issues. Also, see the talk page for Hilbert space. This isn't going to be pretty. But, we'll do it! :) LaraLove 17:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will attempt to fix Hilbert space and encourage others to help. As for the rest, I'll leave some comments, but I'm not keen to get involved with the rest of the sweeps process. After all, I am not an experienced GA reviewer, and I am on Wikibreak ;-) Geometry guy 20:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I just didn't like the thought of sequential GARs. The maths people tend to loath that and become furious that they weren't given the opportunity to address issues. LaraLove 02:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Forgive the intrusion.)

Various comments I have read give me the impression that some folks outside Wikipedia's mathematical community find most folks inside it "difficult". Curiously, my experience from the inside is quite different; for example, we have few conflicts, and issues tend to be settled quickly and amicably. Correspondingly, looking out at the rest of Wikipedia we see a great deal of chaos and confusion and muddle-headed thinking. Vandalism is rampant, edit wars rage endlessly, debates have little grounding in facts, and editors — even admins — act like petulant children.

Forgive me for being vulgar, but I think a little good old-fashioned ass-kissing would go a long way. (In both directions, actually.) Consider Hilbert space. This is a sophisticated topic that is rarely encountered in university without a great deal of prior education. To have the confidence to write about it requires even more expertise; and to write well — especially for a broad Wikipedia audience — is an enormous hurdle. We do not take it for granted that others realize that, because we see too much evidence that they do not.

If editors drop a note on the talk page (or worse yet, plop a banner into the article) that says "Make it simpler" or "Needs more inline citations", we tend to see them as blithering idiots who will never (1) read the article for content, (2) work to understand it, (3) be able to understand it, or (4) seriously improve it.

Contrast that with an editor who drops us a note that says thanks for the hard work, but this one passage is confusing or contradicts something remembered from elsewhere, or — we can only hope to be so lucky — asks where to read more. The clouds part, sunlight gushes through, and birds erupt into song. In teaching, this would be the student who really wants to master the topic, not one who is going through the motions to get a grade; this we love.

Credit where due, I wonder how many editors appreciate how tedious and painful it can be to review articles. As Nathaniel Hawthorne said, "Easy reading is damned hard writing", and the worst writers have no idea how atrociously they mangle sense and syntax. For them it is enough that they understand what they mean. And what to say in a review? "Writing license revoked"?

(We now return you to your program in progress.) --KSmrq^T 05:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My experiences with the maths project have been both negative and positive. The first experience was by far the worst, and you know what they say about first impressions. There is a troll amongst you. Otherwise, I've found most of the editors involved to be quite polite. You, for example, are polite. G'guy is, of course, in my opinion, just great. However, where part of the problem comes in for us (GA folks) is in your comment "If editors drop a note on the talk page [...] we tend to see them as blithering idiots..." Then you added "Contrast that with an editor who drops us a note that says thanks for the hard work..."

I had a manager once who would refuse to do anything if you didn't first greet her and ask her how her day was. Never one to kiss ass, I would just go find a different manager. I didn't care how her day was, I didn't like her and I didn't want to be fake and pretend otherwise. If she didn't want to do her job, so be it. I'd find someone who did. Perhaps I've kept that same attitude here. But Wikipedia is not like that job. We don't have to do the work that we do here. We do it because we want to. And everyone should be recognized and thanked for their hard work; appreciated for their efforts. I think this is something I overlooked when building the sweeps project. And something that has, perhaps, often been overlooked for the months that GA has been around.

It's a matter of balance needing to be found. Reviewing an article is, as you noted, tedious work. Too frequently, reviewers (including myself) review the article, list the issues and expect that they be addressed. Period. Time is also an issue. There are so many reviews to be done, there's a pressure not to spend too much time on each one. But, I'll do what I can to fix this. I've already limited who can review the articles. I'm trying to keep them out of GAR, along with most of the other articles that would normally go there. But it's got to be a give and take. Math editors have to be willing to work with us to improve the articles. We're all working toward the same goal. LaraLove 13:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that two mathematics editors, user Michael Hardy (talk · contribs) and user Pmanderson (talk · contribs), regularly get into scrapes with people outside mathematics, but rarely with people inside. Michael, in particular, can range from gruff to outraged, but I don't think it's because he's a troll; I see it as his version of high expectations and impatience with anything less. Mostly. In a recent brawl involving a dubious deletion, his repeated expressions of anger were enough of a problem that I said something to him about it publicly; ironically, he was sabotaging his own goals, which I supported. If your first encounter was something like that, it would make a lasting impression.

Reading between the lines, beyond not liking your manager, you did not respect her behavior, yes? Ouch. But dealing with difficult people is part of the Wikipedia experience; fortunately, so is dealing with gracious and generous and wise people. Do you have any experience sailing? Sailing against a stiff wind, it is necessary to tack side to side as the boat rides up and down over the waves and heels hard; yet we keep our eyes on our destination in spite of the tacking and buffeting and spray. So it is with Wikipedia. Some days I can handle it; others, I just want to curl up with a warm fire and glorious music. :-) --KSmrq^T 18:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm enjoying reading this conversation and don't want to interrupt, but I used to sail: tacking into a stiff breeze can be challenging, exhausting, exhilerating... It is a great metaphor for life itself. Geometry guy 18:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, to sail. I wish. I think it would be wonderful. Alas, I do not. However, I can appreciate the metaphor. Regarding your mention of Michael Hardy and Pmanderson, I've never met Michael. I'll leave it at that. I handle general wiki-conflict pretty well, I think. But I'm still learning how to best deal with trolls. I think I'm getting there, however. When the math project troll hijacked GAR, I ended up going on a wikibreak from the project along with a few other GAR regulars. It's my opinion that if one editor is so disruptive in a project that it forces regulars of that project to flee for the hills, that editor is a troll. Observing their edit history is also quite revealing... and surprising, really.

But to get back on track, I don't have a problem with the Math project as a whole. There are some users that I have issues with, but overall it's a matter of GA having the distinct impression that the Math project has zero tolerance for anything GA. Various comments (and threats) have revealed as much. I've done what I can to ease the tension, as I do what I can to prevent it, which is why I posted the above message to G'guy. LaraLove 05:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yea, and as far as the manager... she was a mean bitch. One of the bitchiest women I've ever met (and I've met myself, so that really says something about her). Condescending, rude, hateful, lazy... you name it. A troll, really, now that I think about it. Few people liked her... and most of those few were probably just ass-kissing fakes. Hope that wasn't too blunt. LaraLove 05:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gguy! I see you scaled down on Wikipedia a bit, and that's good, my own experience has been that it takes a while to get over the initial excitement about things and settle in a pattern that balances Wikipedia with life outside it. :)

Anyway, I would like to ask you a big favor. I need to talk to somebody knowing differential geometry, and you are the only person I could think about. But I'd prefer email rather than wiki communication, for a reason I'll explain later. If possible, could you send me an email (at "Email this user", below the search box on the left) or enable email in your preferences so that I could contact you? Hope that's not too much trouble. Thanks a lot. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I enabled my email. Geometry guy 19:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the Anabolic Steroid article for FA. Please leave some comments. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good. I added my support. Geometry guy 19:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated StatisticianBot to use GAN rather than GAC. The WP:GAN/R and associated pages have been created, and the bot is now updating those pages instead of the WP:GAC/R pages. Similarly, the backlog list is now being updated on Wikipedia:Good article nominations/backlog/items. All that remains to be done is for the page that the bot is getting its data from needs to be changed from Good article candidates to Good article nominations; this can only take place after the move takes place, so let me know when that is and I'll make that change.

Just in case I missed something during the fix, keep an eye out for any problems and let me know so that I can fix them. I have tested it, though, and it appears to be working properly. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 14:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I replied on your talk page. Geometry guy 19:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know I've replied in the discussion on my talk page. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 21:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

will have to be put back into her signature. Welcome back! (officially) :)—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 22:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's this? You're back!? Haha. That's fantastic! I had a request in IRC today to change back my sig. I didn't have time to get into the details of it, but it wasn't going to happen. However, if you are back, I must again show my heart. What color shall it be? :D LaraLove 04:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lara❤Love

Very pretty. I'm only really dabbling, not seriously contributing, but it makes no sense to say I am on Wikibreak when I am making regular edits. I'll be glad to see your sig with a heart in it again, anyway. Geometry guy 10:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's back. And it has it's own page now. Lara❤Love 17:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your "most cherished" list earlier, and am honoured to be on it, particularly in such fine company. Geometry guy 22:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I felt it necessary to recognize those users who have positively impacted me here on a regular basis. Those who continuously amaze me in one way or another. Lara❤Love 06:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lovely idea. Geometry guy 10:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I like a dark heart and this combination of the new and the old: Lara♥Love. Geometry guy 23:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, just seen your annotation to this page, obviously it needs foxing fixing, but I haven't seen this before and would welcome some guidance as to what needs to be done. Apart from the obvious citation tags, you've also mentioned WP:OR and I'm not sure if you had anything in mind. Is there a way of seeing the detail of your concerns? Tks. --Rodhullandemu 22:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm chilled! All I did was fix a template substitution. I did not make the review. Thanks. Geometry guy 22:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, should have looked at the history. --Rodhullandemu 22:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Good luck with the article. Geometry guy 22:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need to trim and simplify the GAN page now, it seems, as there's an FA reg bitching about it on the Village Pump. God forbid he be confused by a process he doesn't participate in. And his suggestion to remedy it is to merge PR into it, which would involve more instructions while somehow magically decreasing the backlog of both. Brilliant. Lara❤Love 16:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that and added a brief comment. I agree that the GAN page needs some clarification and copyediting. I suggest we treat it like an article and try to meet criterion 1! :-) Geometry guy 16:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		G'guy, for everything you have done to improve the quality of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles, I present you with this award. You have proven time and time again to be an invaluable asset to the project. Your thoughtful discussions and willingness to tackle tasks after consensus has been reached are more appreciated than you know. Thank you for everything that you do! Lara❤Love 20:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not always after consensus, but what the heck, be bold. Thanks for the kind words. Geometry guy 20:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need a program. Troll-feeders anonymous. Or Troll-feeder management classes. Why do I always get caught up in these messes? And why can't I ever just shut up? It's horrible. And this one was so obvious. I should have just ignored from the start. I need a detector. Something to alert me... and prevent me from replying. Gah! So obvious. Why can't I see it from the start? Lara❤Love 20:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a programme on TV when I was a kid called "Why Don't You?". The lyrics of the theme tune were something like

Why don't you? Why don't you? Why don't you? Why don't you? Why don't you? Why don't you? Why don't you? Why don't you? Why don't you? Why don't you? Why don't you? Why don't you... just switch off your television set and go and do something less boring instead?

It continued along the lines of "Sitting at home, watching TV, turn it off, it's no good for me...". However, I soon discovered, that, true to its word, the programme was really boring, so when the intro tune reached "...do something less boring instead?", I would reply "OK", and switch of the TV.

And the point is? This is your leisure time. It should be interesting or fun or (preferably) both. Just ask yourself "Am I getting something good out of this?" If a particular article or interaction or discussion is not satisfying, go and do something else! Well, that is my (age 7 year old) philosophy... Geometry guy 20:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good philosophy. I think I'll follow it. Lara❤Love 04:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. Geometry guy 22:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that you are a frequent reviewer at that Good Articles project. good article reassessment is experiencing a considerable backlog problem. There are several articles dating from August that still have not generated enough discussion to close. Could you please take a look at the oldest articles and make some fresh comments on them? Please note that some of these have undergone signigicant changes since they first came to GA/R; please judge the article only on its merits as of its current version. If you reviewed an earlier version of any of these articles, please also consider re-reading them and either revise or endorse any earluer comments you have made. Thanks for your help with this! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...could become FA. You would need a sufficient number of reviewers who understand the content. And there'd be some minute points that would likely get brought (e.g., first person plural usage). But otherwise, it would be perfectly fine.

I started Wikipedia:Content review/workshop after discussion with Mike Christie. Marskell 13:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it still needs some work, but I might see if there is interest in doing this. As for the workship, I think you are rushing things, and have said so. I really think it would be a good idea if you deleted the page, and let Mike set it up later. Geometry guy 18:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]