User talk:64.112.179.236
GA process
[edit]Hi IP, I saw your post in the ANI thread, and then discovered that there is apparently a huge argument about how to handle the tiny green stickers that I never noticed before
... yeah. Welcome to wikipedia. There are all kinds of things that have basically no effect on readers that editors care a whole lot about. The way to stay sane is to try to avoid those arguments once people get emotional about them (or entirely). But the GA process itself is a good way to get another editor, who isn't an expert on the topic but does usually have quite a bit of wikipedia experience, to read what you've written and provide helpful feedback. Since most readers aren't experts either, that tends to be pretty helpful. So, that's the pitch in favour. You can ignore all the GA-focused editors all you like.
By the way, even if you're just fixing the occasional footnote, I recommend starting an account. If for no other reason, it's nice to end up on fewer abuse filters, which is of benefit both to you and to the people who patrol for vandalism, etc. -- asilvering (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks; I'll consider that. I don't know if I'll be sticking around, though. People here seem weird and mean and cliquey and inclined to jump all over someone for breaking any of a contradictory set of rules, or a rule that they just made up. 64.112.179.236 (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- Tell me about it. I nearly quit so many times when I was new. I can tell you that it's been getting better, little by little, over the past several years, and that my own experienced improved dramatically once I a) became extended-confirmed (a good reason to make an account) and b) stopped reading the "backstage" stuff and just focused on improving the only part of the encyclopedia that matters to most people: the articles. -- asilvering (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- You don't have to worry about those enraged drama things in Wikipedia. It's preferable to improve the article as best as one can. Thank you for a lifesaver by the way. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- ANI is sometimes called the "drama board", because there is a lot of drama there. I only look there occasionally to see what is going on. You might be interested in WP:WikiProject Mathematics (including, or perhaps mainly, its talk page), or in the mathematical deletion sorting at WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics. It does take a little while to understand the notability criteria, and I took a while to watch before I commented much. But fleshing out an article that is in poor shape can be pretty satisfying! Anyway, welcome. Ah! One more link: you might find the discussion at the WP:Teahouse somewhat interesting -- it is a Q&A forum for newer users. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you all for your comments. 64.112.179.236 (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- I've done all the fixes on Matrix (mathematics) that I have any particular experience for (everything else is on applications that I haven't studied in any real depth). So, maybe I'm done. Not sure yet. 64.112.179.236 (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Whether you stick around or not, thanks for the help. Every little bit counts. :) -- asilvering (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- ANI is sometimes called the "drama board", because there is a lot of drama there. I only look there occasionally to see what is going on. You might be interested in WP:WikiProject Mathematics (including, or perhaps mainly, its talk page), or in the mathematical deletion sorting at WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics. It does take a little while to understand the notability criteria, and I took a while to watch before I commented much. But fleshing out an article that is in poor shape can be pretty satisfying! Anyway, welcome. Ah! One more link: you might find the discussion at the WP:Teahouse somewhat interesting -- it is a Q&A forum for newer users. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- You don't have to worry about those enraged drama things in Wikipedia. It's preferable to improve the article as best as one can. Thank you for a lifesaver by the way. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- Tell me about it. I nearly quit so many times when I was new. I can tell you that it's been getting better, little by little, over the past several years, and that my own experienced improved dramatically once I a) became extended-confirmed (a good reason to make an account) and b) stopped reading the "backstage" stuff and just focused on improving the only part of the encyclopedia that matters to most people: the articles. -- asilvering (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
On the other hand, nobody has convinced me that "GA" status actually means anything, and the only practical consequence of "FA" status is that some of them might one day get a day on the main page, so not caring at all whether an article has "GA" or "FA" status sounds like the better way to live one's life.
I think that's a sound observation. In general, GA means an article has been scanned for nonsense, poor sourcing, erroneous info or mistakes, and bias. FA means that it conforms to community-based rules, policies, and guidelines (house style) and has a more restricted topic coverage that tends to limit the POV presented (recognized experts, mainstream sources, centrist POV). Just my take. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)