User talk:The1physicist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello The1physicist, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments at Talk:Electronegativity

Hi, I have replied to your comments above --postglock 07:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP 1.0

Hi,

Thanks a lot for taking the initiative on the Wiki Sort project. I tried to coax the original people into doing this, but failed, though they (particularly User:Stirling Newberry) may be willing to participate. I would also recommend you take a look at Stirling Newberry's suggestions (scroll down to his paragraphs) and David Gerard's suggestions. Both are very active Wikipedians with useful ideas, I think. Maybe you could post these ideas, or a summary of them, somewhere on the project page? You should probably also take a look at the earlier assessment method, which simply never got used (only one article was ever assessed this way in 9 months!), nevertheless people may refer to this in discussions with you. By the way, I'm pretty new to this project, which lay dormant for several months, I'm trying to activate it. I probably won't make direct contributions to the Wiki Sort project, but I did a very thorough study of all of the discussions on this topic going back years, and I thought I could give you some useful leads to help you get started here.

Finally, can I ask you to sign up as a participant in the WP 1.0 team at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team#Members? Thanks again, good luck, and I look forward to working with you. Walkerma 16:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Publicizing your project

I can link to it in this week's issue, that's fine. You may also cross post it to the village pump as well. Ral315 (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiSort

Hi, did you see my feature that just awaits Brion's approval to turn it on? The plan, according to Jimbo™ is to turn it on, let everyone rate article for a month or so, gather the data and then see how the final rating feature should be designed. --Magnus Manske 12:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, so, as I understand it, WikiSort is made of two parts

  1. A manual rating phase, which allows to rate an article version sepearately for scope, comprehensiveness, etc.
  2. An automated extraction phase, based on the ratings from #1

My feature is already implemented and does everything need for #1. It only needs to be turned on, and some topics ("scope") will have to be defined. Takes about 2 minutes. Phase #2 would be basically querying the database and compare some values; it might even boil down to a single database query. So, programming time: 5 minutes. The hard part will be to set up the rules to determine include/don't include.

And therein lies the problem. Example: You can rate "scope" from 1-5 points, with 5 being the best rating. For one article, two people ratged it 1 and 5, respectively. For another article, two people both rated it 3. Is this really the same rating? Taking average value, yes. For for the first article, a human might guess that one of the ratings is either a joke or a manipulation attempt. So you'd have to calculate median errors or something. Which error range is acceptable? And so on. --Magnus Manske 10:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I really didn't see the message due to some other comment, sorry. Part of the problem is an anti-vandalism; the other part is that we can't throw statistics at the average user, but rather present something like a readlight for each article version, red-yellow-green, telling the user the version he's seeing is bad, so-so, or OK. How to set the weigths for this one is a lesson that will hopefully be taught to us during the initial test phase. --Magnus Manske 18:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello, I confess I have been eavesdropping on this conversation, it seems very exciting to me, the biggest thing to happen to Wikipedia since I joined a year ago! It will really put the WP1.0 project into the "hot seat", I hope you are ready for that. I wanted to ask, can you give us a detailed update on the 1.0 project talk page?
By the way, I wanted to mention, as you probably know I have been working on the Core topics and the Work via Wikiprojects parts, and User:Tuf-Kat has taken on the FAs first part. As I see it, these are not made redundant by the Wikisort project taking off, rather they can complement it. These other three sub-projects give us an element of peer review, something Wikipedia is often criticised for not having. All three of these are now nicely underway, and should begin to mature within less than a year. I think we can put together 1000 FAs, 100 core topics and 1000 Wikiproject articles (maybe more) easily by next September, and this will give us a good foundation of key peer-reviewed articles upon which to overlay perhaps 10,000 "A-grade" articles from Wikisort.
I am also finding the contact with the Wikiprojects very valuable for indirectly pointing out those important articles that need work. However it doesn't help if there is no WikiProject, or if it is quiet as with general Archaeology. I think Wikisort will be valuable for showing us what subject areas are weak, if we can find a way to look at the "big picture" across the whole range of topics. But I think WP1.0 (or will it be 0.5, 0.8 or 0.9?) will of necessity be patchy- some areas such as Harry Potter have many active writers and are fully covered, whereas some areas are very weak. We won't be able to change that in a year.
Please keep us posted, and keep up the good work! Walkerma 17:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, as it says on my user page, my life is Holy-Mother-of-God busy at the moment *cries*. However, thanksgiving break will be upon us shortly (about a week, but I haven't even had time to check!), so I'll try and do a massive update then.the1physicist 05:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't jeapordise your academic studies for Wikipedia! (Yes, you guessed, I'm a college professor!). 25 credit hours is way beyond what I would take on! You've already done a great job laying the groundwork for the WikiSort project, and you deserve some time to work on your "real" life for a while. You're in my prayers. Cheers, Walkerma 16:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 7800 GTX 512

I don't see why you're upset. Your work wasn't "erased", you can still access it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GeForce_7_Series&oldid=28620354

Now, I don't understand your tone. You're upset that I "erased" your work from the article. But do you realize that you erased someone else's work? I think the 512 card should be represented, alongside the 256 card. I did not have time to restore the 256 information and maintain the new info that you put, because I was at work - but the point is that *you* are the one adding the info, so it is *your* task to do so responsibly. Themindset 02:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about why the 7800GS was blanked... but yeah, if I see large chunks blanked with no summary, I will almost always revert. Themindset 06:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Validation

Hi! The decision about the validation feature being turned on lies with Brion Vibber, who is currently polishing it to new glory. I and others have been pushing it on various mailing lists for month now, though. There is a proposal for topics at meta:En_validation_topics, which AFAIK will be used. Remember, we'll turn the feature on for a test phase of a few weeks/month only, then analyze the results, design the final validation feature based on that analysis, throw away all data collected so far, and then start with it. --Magnus Manske 09:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus

Check out the Jesus article and edit it to keep it focused on Jesus and a biographical account of Him. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thank you. Scifiintel 22:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious, what prompted you to post this? Was it just random, or something I did? Anyhow, I'm sorry, but I prefer to stay away from most of the hot button articles.the1physicist 03:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] West Virginia as the U.S. Collaboration of the Week

Hey The1physicist, I recently nominated West Virginia's main article as a candidate for US Collaboration of the Week since it is in much need of a major upgrade and reorganization. As a fellow West Virginian, I hope you will help us with this current endeavor. Please feel free to support the nomination or make a comment either way at the US Collaboration nomination page. Thanks! --Caponer 23:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US Collaboration of the week

You have voted for [[{{{1}}}]] on the USCOTW. It was selected to be this week's collaboration. You are invited to help to contribute in order to improve [[{{{1}}}]] in any way possible. Cmadler 14:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You know, stuff

Thanks for you reassurance you left on my talk page. I always thought the "not deleted, in the history" line made no sense whatsoever! I'm just glad the whole incident's over. - 09:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC) The Great Gavini lobster telephone

[edit] WikiSort status report?

Hi again,

I was wanting to write up a progress report for WP 1.0 as we are reaching some (small) milestones on some of the subprojects. Can you give me some idea of the status of this? Is the WikiMedia validation software being tested yet? I'll probably post things at the end of the month. Thanks, Walkerma 19:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have not had a lot of time to work on WikiSort lately. At any rate (<- semi-pun), the real bottleneck seems to be getting feedback from other users and/or getting the ideas implemented in software. Regarding user feedback, I really think someone needs to spam the village pump, main talk page, signpost, etc. with all the 1.0 projects and tell people to voice their opinion. I think we refrained from that in the past because our ideas were very rough, but I think there's definitely enough clarity now to justify spamming. Regarding the software, they've been saying "any second now" for a while, so I don't have a definite timeline. I will try to ask again, so maybe we'll get some definite answers.the1physicist 20:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1.0 Collaboration of the Week

Hi, I noticed you signed up as a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. Recently, a 1.0 Collaboration of the Week was created to work on essential topics that are in need of improvement, which will ultimately go in a release version of Wikipedia. You can help by voting, contributing to an article, or simply making a comment. Thank you for your support. :) Gflores Talk 08:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP 1.0

Hey - Noticed you're working on the Version 1.0 project - would love to get involved since it's probably a whole lot more useful than my usual aimless editing and categorizing. If you could provide some guidance or a to-do list, I'd be thrilled to jump right into the project. Thanks, hope to hear from you! Paul 23:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is all extremely fascinating - I am very eager to get involved. I am still not sure in what capacity I would be able to help, though...one reason I love WP in general is that I can pick out any of a million articles and figure out how to improve it...if you could direct me to some sort of to-do list or provide suggestions for something to start on, I'd jump right in. I very much think that this project will represent a huge step forward for WP and would be proud to have my moniker attached to it. Thanks for getting back to me! Paul 05:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
You have made a lot of comments on rating articles ref 1.0. I have just been through this process in making the CD version listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download and am now convinced by the experience you can only rate a specific historical version of an article; even in 24 hours the deterioration you see on fairly major articles (e.g. even just someone adding in a comment with a spelling error) means you have to control the time axis too--BozMo talk 10:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1.0 "Release Version Qualifying"

Hi. I'm interested in feedback on Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Qualifying. It's essentially an idea to use a process similar to WP:FAC to identify and handle articles and lists that would go in a release version. Maurreen 18:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WV Schools

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2007/January/14#.7B.7Btl.7CWest-Virginia-school-stub.7D.7D_.2F_.7B.7Bcl.7CWest_Virginia_school_stubs.7D.7D

I seem step into contrevesy all the time, even when I think things are super obvious. I think it is important to use the correct spelling in an educational tool. Could you take a look at this please. Thanks --71Demon 13:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wormhole image:Dphwormhole.jpg

I would like to post the image on the wormhole page. It was a real experience that happened. If here at wikipedia, you want to change the world and correct its views, then I think you should allow the image. I DID discover visual evidence, and do have physical evidence of time travel from it. Just because it didn't happen in a laboratory dosen't invalidate the reality of its existance, however brief. The machines that physists have created to try to produce the phenomenon and detect them fail because they do not truely understand the inner structure of the universe. I am a professional observationist, meaning I was paid to watch, listen and become aware of any out of the ordinary while a test of some machine or part of some device was in opperation while under a test load. I have had many unique experiences, and have a bad habit of always being correct. If you want things to improve in this world, proper display of my rendered image of what I saw that night would be a start in the right direction.

Sincerely,

I am The Inventor (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)