User talk:Walkerma/Archive10

For other talk page archives see User talk:Walkerma/Archives. Other close archives include:

Archive1 &mdash; Archive2 &mdash; Archive3 &mdash; Archive4 &mdash; Archive5 &mdash; Archive6 &mdash; Archive7 &mdash; Archive8 &mdash; Archive10 &mdash; Archive11 &mdash; Archive12 &mdash; Archive13 &mdash; Archive14 &mdash; Archive15 &mdash; Archive16 &mdash; Archive17 &mdash; Archive18 &mdash; Archive19

This is the tenth archive of User talk:Walkerma, covering June 2006.

Version 0.5 Reviewing
Well, I've been thinking about the sandbox idea above, and it seems like a good idea, with one exception: reviewers with expertise in one area do not get to necessarily review articles in that area. But then, I've noticed that the same is happening in the current system: I've pretty much reviewed articles about astronomy and other natural sciences, yet there's a small backlog in history, for which I think Kirill Lokshin may know more, so I don't touch them. Yet, at the same time, I cannot touch any of the tropical cyclone articles that are nominated, as I've edited most of them as part of WP:TROP... in brief, what should we do about this? Should we stay reviewing articles which we know something about, or should we be a bit more risky and review articles in areas we are unfamiliar with? Tito xd (?!? - help us) 06:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think both pages are a good idea, with one exception: the "Disputes" page should be for the cases where another reviewer disagrees with the opinion of another, instead of it being a nominatior. I think it would be necessary so we don't have something alike the WP:AFD&rarr;WP:DRV&rarr;WP:AFD circle at the other side of the quality scale. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 06:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess that makes sense, although I'm a bit leery of it, as I've seen WP:DRV being gamed in unimaginable ways. That said, we can make a second review composed of three reviewers "final", and hopefully it doesn't have to go from there. I'll look forward to the WikiProject contact soon. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 07:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The first instance of this needed system that I've seen: Hoba meteorite is something I would have failed on quality immediately, and it was held instead. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 03:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point, that article should be removed from "held." I confess I punted a few into "held" last night and I can't say I more than glanced at them, because I couldn't see us finding room for an article about tooth enamel on this test.  But I (and others) probably need to check for quality more carefully, so we don't waste time reviewing poor quality "held" articles.  Thanks, Walkerma 03:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Could I have a second opinion on Sandy Koufax? It passes quality-wise, but I can't decide whether it should go to the holding cell or to the release... Tito xd (?!? - help us) 05:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * He is in that gray area, indeed, as the ones that are on my "short list" are Babe Ruth, Jackie Robinson, Hank Aaron, Ty Cobb and Cy Young... but he definitely is on the next rank, or in the same one. Again, it's not in my area of expertise... Tito xd (?!? - help us) 05:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

COTW Project
You voted for Lee Smith (baseball), this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

Question on importance
Hi Martin. Wonder if you could comment at Wikipedia talk:Version_1.0_Editorial Team/Index of subjects. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Helping with contacting WikiProjects
My primary interest with WVWP at the moment is in coordinating with the Physics WikiProject, but in principle I can help contact some WikiProjects. Let me know when it gets started! -- SCZenz 06:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Martin. I am happy enough with the bot generated WP lists, so as far as I am concerned, any time could be good to contact the wikiprojects about WP 1.0. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's great news! We'll start contacting them tomorrow.  Walkerma 06:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've tried for example contacting science wikiproject and they replied with plenty of articles. I've already nominated them. Maybe we should contact them personally. NCursework 08:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Soil
This is a new wikiproject covering about 250 articles, almost all of which seem to be in a stub or start stage. Project formation was prompted by WPCD tagging. See here for the project's article assessment format. Any pointers or advice you can offer would be appreciated. -- Paleorthid 16:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

NFPA 704
I will not be adding the NFPA 704 images to IMD. I thought that since we have an NFPA 704 template, the images would be pointless. Thanks for proving me wrong. :)

-- Evan Robidoux 19:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

your message
Thanks indeed for your support! Tony 07:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Chemical substance
Thanks Martin for the edit on chemical substance, it just has the feel that I wanted to see from it. Nice work! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Contacting WikiProjects
I don't know whether you watch my talk page or not, that's why I reply here. Thanks for the infos. I have exams now, so I can't say I'd help now, but I'd like to join when you start contacting science-related wikiprojects. So please let me know when you are there. Thanks and good work. :) NCursework 08:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

WPCD
So are you back in circulation for a chat? I have managed to tweak the Good Articles template so that all the good articles are added to WPCD. If you could do the same to the category of articles accepted for 0.5 it would help me. Category WPCD now has about 3400 articles. At 5000 we will try a rerun (at least to stick up as a demo even if not as a download). If you want help putting up a 0.5 version then let me know. --BozMo talk 09:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Tuesday? In 6 days time? Personally I would prefer to chat UK office hours on a M,T or Th if thats ok. --BozMo talk 21:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * see http://www.soschildrensvillages.org.uk/sponsor-a-child/sponsorship-directory/africa.htm for eg click map

Suppliers
I posted a slightly worked-out suggestion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals. I guess that is better place for the discussion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Got one step further, but still not there, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals, Chemical sources and Wikipedia talk:Chemical sources. I hope we can find someone that knows how to, and can make a special page.  Hope you don't mind I put your name as a possible contact for the page.  Cheers  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 22:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikifilms Project
I believe the Wikifilm project would welcome the chance to open a Worklist, Bot Generated or otherwise. What do you we have to do to obtain this? Send in a request? Thanks for your time. --P-Chan 06:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey thanks for the info. We'll definetly discuss this on Film Project talk.  I have a feeling that the worklist would add a lot of value to the project.  Gremlins 2?  If that's called being a b*****d, then you should keep it up!  Hehe.  Best to you! --P-Chan 07:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulation on your sixthousandth edit
Hi, Martin, while doing some editcounting, I compared my nearly 3900 edits with some others and found you've just passed the 6000 edit. Congratulations. I wonder how you managed to also get some real work done. I tend to stay up way too late. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 23:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC). Remember, though: editcountitis can be fatal...  Statistics for: Walkerma (Permissions: N/A) - Total: 6081 - --- --- ---  Tito xd (?!?) 01:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Main: 2656
 * Talk: 659
 * User: 135
 * User talk: 587
 * Wikipedia: 801
 * Wikipedia talk: 870
 * Image: 180
 * Template: 55
 * Template talk: 9
 * Category: 78
 * Category talk: 8
 * Portal: 42
 * Portal talk: 1
 * Total edits: 6081
 * Minor edits: 1680
 * Edits with edit summary: 5730
 * Edits with manual edit summary: 5450
 * Percent minor edits: 27.62% *
 * Percent edit summary use: 94.22% *
 * Percent manual edit summary use: 89.62% *
 * First known edit: Nov 9, 2004
 * * - percentages are rounded down to the nearest hundredth.


 * Thanks! Yes, I stay up too late as well, so it's a rather dubious achievement in my opinion.  I'm very restrained compared to some, though!  Cheers, and congrats on reaching 4000, Wim. Walkerma 04:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

RFA offer
I know you do exceptional work WP:1.0 And WP:0.5 and I'm wondering if I could nominate you for adminship as the tools can be more helpful for you. Reply on my talk page. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 19:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to join, but I must say it's a perfect idea. :) NCursework 19:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice of you to offer, but tools are only useful if you know how to use them! I'm still getting the hang of templates!  Also, call me selfish, but my NOT being an admin frees me from all sorts of duties so I can work on fun things like WP:Chem and WP:V0.5!  Thanks a lot, Walkerma 03:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Rocks and minerals
Hi - just now saw your request from last spring on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocks and minerals. Obviously I don't pay much attention to the project although I do edit a bunch of rock & mineral articles. I have added 3 to the Rock & mineral section of Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WPScience and can add a bunch more - need to review the criteria a bit more before continuing. Vsmith 22:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

1.0/Good articles
Martin-Those articles are definitely the type I'd love to put some work into...and it would be a pleasure collaborating with you. At the moment I'm going to go listen to my favourite radio program but when I get up tomorrow morning (noon or whereabouts) I'll have a look at Dow Chemical.

Incidentally, you and I are both SUNY alumni...very interesting choice of uni for an Englishman. (And furthermore incidentally, I will be visiting your sceptered isle from 5 July to 22 July in preparation for this wacky event. If you'd like to get together at some point for an imperial pint of a fine ale, then let me know. Paul 06:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My goodness, I just had a quick look...the world's second largest chemical company truly deserves better. Will get to it in the mornin'. Paul 06:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, congratulations on your barnstar; the good articles project is perhaps the most worthy of Wikipedia's many projects. Secondly, check out Dow Chemical and share your thoughts; it still has a ways to go but I think it's much better than it was when I started. Best, Paul 06:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Education V0.5
I was looking at this article, which you nominated, for V0.5 inclusion. It seems to be to be well written and is an important topic, but it has no inline citations (as oppossed to general references) at all and is B-class. B-class does not prevent it from being included, but higher levels are preferred (Aclass, GA, FA). I just don't feel comfortable including it without any citations. If appropriate citations were added, I'd include it without hesitation. Please respond on my talk page and note I'll be gone for a week beginning 25 June. Rlevse 11:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)...same deal with Money.Rlevse 11:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to say for 0.5 that no or only a few footnotes are OK? For a B class, I may see that, but not for GA, A, or FA. Rlevse 17:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping me understand the process better. I started off mainly writing articles in the Scouting area, now I the coordinator of the Scouting Project and Scouting Portal.  Now I'm moving into the area of making articles better and getting them rating, which is how I recently became involved in the GA and 0.5 areas.  So, now that I understand the 0.5 process better, I selected Education and Money. I have my own article I was a main co-writer of up for 0.5 --- Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America), which is a FA.  It was my second FA.  Thanks for the help on learning the process.Rlevse 20:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject templates
You might want to take a look at this new proposal; if it gets any significant support, the entire Mathbot-driven rating system will go down the drain. Kirill Lokshin 16:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

10,000
It seems we've finally broken past 10,000 assessed articles. We have—thanks, in large part, to your own determination in seeing this project through—achieved the first steps of what may become the semi-mythical article validation system that everyone always talks about. More than that, your efforts have spurred furious activity on the part of many formerly lethargic WikiProjects. We—as Wikipedians—are all very much in your debt. Kirill Lokshin 05:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture
Thanks for nominating my picture - it was really funny for me to see it here :-)

Polimerek 20:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

GA disputes and vetos
Hi,

We are having a discussion about a change to the delisting procedure here. Since you were part of the group that formulated the dispute procedure your feedback on the matter would be appreciated if you have the time.

Best wishes,

Cedars 03:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The message you left for wikiproject Stargate
Hi, When you first asked our project for "quality articles" we thought you were asking for articles that were both good and important. Because of this, we decided to get rid of some very good articles, just because they were obscure. (Here is an example) There was an intense debate in the project a few months ago over what is imporant enough to be put in. Now that you are asking us for important articles I, and probably others are in a state of confusion. We thought that's what the first list was.

What I think you want is:
 * The first list to be of good articles (They don't have to be important despite previous misconceptions)
 * The second list will be of crucial articles

Thats what I think you are saying. If that's indeed what you are saying, pleaser make that clear, or a big havoc will start in the project out of confusion. If not, please let me know what you want the project to do. Thanks Tobyk777 06:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels
Spotted you were in touch with a WikiProject Books that has been a little less active than ours. We do overlap a bit but in a co-operative manner. I was just wanting to make contact with the WP:1.0 team and start getting proper assessment going. We have made a start with Category:Novel articles by quality etc. Please you or someone else from the team if you get in touch that would be good. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  16:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:WVWP contacts and other things
Hello, Martin. As you can see, I haven't been editing much lately, as real life has picked up its pace, and I have overall less time to edit (or to be online at all). However, I'll still help with 0.5 and the WikiProjects lists, I'm just not sure what exactly to do. I was thinking of doing the contacts for the science/places WikiProjects, as I had contacted them originally, and perhaps do more behind-the-scenes work, but if there's something else I can help with, feel sure to give me a nudge. Tito xd (?!?) 22:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Usually, I'm better at updating and maintaining the lists, and other back-end infrastructure, but I'll try to help as much with the Science/Places contacts, as I'll be less busy by that time, hopefully. The next few weeks will be extremely busy for me, but I'll try to come back in and help out anyways. Tito xd (?!?) 23:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)