User talk:Walkerma/Archive16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

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

Archive1 — Archive2 — Archive3 — Archive4 — Archive5 — Archive6 — Archive7 — Archive8 — Archive10 — Archive11 — Archive12 — Archive13 — Archive14 — Archive15 — Archive17 — Archive18 — Archive19

Contents 1 aldol 2 Pascal's offline reader 3 Yikes! 4 Neat resource 5 two things 6 List of African leaders 7 See this 8 Template:WP Futurama notice 9 Clinical depression 10 MartinBotII 11 CD 12 Re: Request for assistance 13 Clear - crystal! 14 Bad citation in Olefin metathesis 15 Late reply 16 Hi Walkerma 17 Start test run of MartinBotII? 18 Re: French WP:MILHIST 19 off-topic: user template 20 Metal is now the Core Topics COTF 21 Family pages- phosphorus halides 22 Beer pong in 0.7 23 WP:Chem assessing 24 Re: Work via Wikiprojects 25 thallium halides 26 DuncanHarris 27 Uranium peer review 28 wikipedia 0.5 29 Wikicite 30 Re: Assessment 31 Thanks 32 Re: Comments requested

aldol

Hey there...what do you think of the aldol reaction page now? I think the featured articles discussion on it could use more input. Thanks. Eugene Kwan 02:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Pascal's offline reader

The file you sent me a link to is very big (170Mb) so it is presumably the data as well as the reader. Is the reader anywhere on its own where I could look at it (e.g. is it an open source at sourceforge or freshmeat or somewhere)? I am just looking for ideas and inspiration really --BozMo talk 15:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It will be made available (under GFDL, I believe), but right now it's still under development. What I sent you was a working demo - but obviously for a demo one wants to have the articles too! As long as you're not planning your 2007 release for January 1st, you could consider using it, I think. Emmanuel probably knows more. Walkerma 16:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yikes!

I did too, apologies! All sorted :)  Glen  03:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Neat resource

Thought this might come in handy: [1] --HappyCamper 23:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

two things

1) could I have a shopping list on clean up for 0.5 e.g. do you want external links in etc. 2) might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2006_Wikipedia_CD_Selection. I don't have much emotion in the issue but I think whether static versions ever get namespace articles is a good one. The principle thing is difficult but also there is a practical thing that if people come to WP looking for a release version they cannot find it from the onsite search unless you have some sort of namespace presence. Entirely up to you --BozMo talk 22:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

List of African leaders

Hi, thanks for helping me with the Wars of Africa set. Here's some suggestions for your set:

Pieter Willem Botha 2nd last apartheid president of South Africa. Seretse Khama 1st president of Botswana Ian Smith declared Unilateral Independence for Rhodesia

Thanks Samuel 22:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestions, I can't believe I forgot Smith. I actually had Botha in originally, I was on the edge with that - but you've clarified it for me. Then I hope we can both review each other's set nominations and give comments there! Thanks, Walkerma 05:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

See this

http://wikipedia-release-version-0.5.fixedreference.org/ has your list up. The script still has some links to SOS which you'd like to take out and the section delete still run on it. Let me know what you want next --BozMo talk 13:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

PS Our latest copy is at http://2007-wikipedia-cd-selection.fixedreference.org/wp/index/alpha.htm and for the moment I am using the same script for both. Both current have all the images with no acknowledgements etc. We are looking at that.

Great, thank you! We should probably coordinate your work on Version 0.5 with the Linterweb work - I'm sure you have cleanup scripts they don't have, and vice versa. I hope that my navigation pages can supplement the alphabetical page - I have two done, but I'll get a lot more done this weekend. By the way, what is the difference between the two versions? I'm really glad we didn't make a CD with this version of the Tanzania article! (Though I admit, the heading "War with Pluto in East Africa" did make me chuckle!) Do you have any scripts for screening out bad versions? Emmanuel said he might be able to write something. I'll email you again very soon, I haven't forgotten about CaCl2, I've just been VERY busy this week. Thanks again, Walkerma 05:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

One is 4500 articles one 1900. The bad version screening we do by hand. --BozMo talk 11:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have picked up a revised Tanzania article. In general if you give a dated version of an article the script picks up the dated version correctly. Which is Emmanuel's user page>--BozMo talk 15:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

He's at fr:utilisateur:Kelson. Walkerma 16:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:WP Futurama notice

Hey man, I'm the idiot that you helped create an assessment with the bot for the Adelaide project a couple months ago. I have hit similar problems with the Futurama project. I have made 2 categories (Category:Futurama articles by quality and Category:Futurama articles by importance) but have so far been unable to get them to display on the notice. Please help me and reply on how I can fix it, or when you have fixed it.

Cheers Jasrocks ^(talk) 11:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anything needs "fixing", the has picked up the new categories. Now you need to assess and tag some articles, then when the redlinked categories appear such as Category:Start-Class Futurama articles you must (for each one):

1. Click on the redlink
2. Type in any introductory blurb you want, then type in [[Category:Futurama articles by quality]] (or importance) as well as [[WikiProject Futurama articles]].
3. Hit enter, and the category should appear, with any Start-Class articles listed. Check that the categories at the bottom of the page are bluelinked (if not, check your spelling and capitalisation).

For more help see the instructions, which (I think) have been revamped since you did the Adelaide work - now easier to understand (I think, anyway). By the way, I notice that there are only 19 articles assessed so far for the Adelaide project - I'm sure there must be many more articles than that! I'll watch for it starting up! Thanks for using the bot, Walkerma 02:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've done that but can't get the importance thing working (see Talk:Futurama). Can you please fix this so it works before I start tagging more articles. Thanks Jasrocks ^(talk) 11:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

To add importance information to the header tag, do as I did here, and add |importance=Top (or High, Mid or Low). Adding importance is quite like adding the quality information. Don't forget to click on the redlinked categories, though (as I described above), or the bot won't pick anything up! Walkerma 16:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Clinical depression

This is in V0.5 as A-class. BUt it just had its' GA rating removed, it's really gone downhill. I'm not sure what, if anything, there is to be done about the V0.5 matter.Sumoeagle179 12:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've amended it. It will be included, though - in fact I think the company has already done the dump. Thanks, and keep up the good work doing GA reviews. Happy New Year! Walkerma 20:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

MartinBotII

Hi, Happy New Year to you too. The aproval went through a while ago, and I could have sword I'd left you a message, though it appears not! In this case, sorry - I can blame it only on illness and procrastination. You can see the approvals page here, and I'll be happy to get it running with the new algorithm. Thanks, Martinp23 11:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

OK - I've left some comments at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/MartinBotII, though I fear they don't make sense. Martinp23 16:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Huge apologies for the continued delays - hopefully all will be fixed in the next few weeks. In the meantime, I've be preparing the bot program to work fully on the toolserver (which I've now got an account for), so I'll be able to retrieve the data required much more quickly. Again, sorry about the delay - I'll contact you as soon as I'm fully active Martinp23 12:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

CD

Have you sorted out images attribution yet (creative commons etc.)? We have this and a better indexing to do so I guess we will be end Jan. --BozMo talk 12:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Good list on which to keep. How are you attribting the ones you keep? Also please let me know where all your index pages are again. Thanx. Am looking into the IRC timing --BozMo talk 17:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Request for assistance

The country lists look ok, as far as I can tell; there are lots of borderline cases, but those are to be expected. A question that came to mind as I was going through them, though: what was the basis for selecting the "countries" here? The inclusion of things like Svalbard and Wales under that label threw me off for a moment. Kirill Lokshin 03:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Clear - crystal!

I recd your comment about my eradicating "clear" when a liquid is colourless. Maybe I was over the top ... It's kind of a philosophical point, and not an burning one. I'll revert the toluene one and some others. My feeling is that clear is superfluous and that indicating otherwise implies that colourless (pure) liquids exist that are cloudy. So I felt that the austere approach was instructive. I could have consulted the group before my mini-jihad on that poor adjective. BTW, you see that I and others are not replacing "white" with colourless for solids, since that term might be obscure to non-specialists. Thank you for your advice. Best wishes,--Smokefoot 05:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I see we already have discussion on this point. I do partially concur, colourless solutions should not absorb light and hence be clear. But .. I am afraid there will still be people who describe white (or opaque) solutions (they reflect all colour .. difficult, if a solution absorbs green light, we describe the colour of the solution as red, when it does not absorb, it is colourless .. aargh) as colourless too, so I think to avoid that confusion, they should state 'clear'. I am sorry for my own little jihad in reverting the edits again. Maybe we should indeed discuss this in a wikiproject. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad citation in Olefin metathesis

I'm looking at this edit, and the DOI doesn't match the Trnka/Grubbs article. Gives an interesting and relevant article, but not sure what was intended here. DMacks 05:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the fix. I've seen mention of a tool to convert PMIDs into full {{cite}}s, but not one for DOIs. But even a javascript that gave a form for entering the data would be nice. DMacks 22:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Late reply

Dear Walkerma, sorry for the late reply, I had to finish my exams, but now I'm ready. :) I've been having a bigger break so could you tell me please where can I help in the Release Version process? Thanks in advance. NCurse _work 20:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Walkerma

Still hanging in there, was working on my Thesis so I had to take a break. I will be back soon, maybe in a week. Lincher 20:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Start test run of MartinBotII?

We have already discussed how the bot will be used. MartinBotII can start running on many more Wikiprojects using the old method. I think the method with linking is too complicated and prone to error (many Start-Class, Low-Importance articles made it). We should first try without rating the projects. If we need to, we will rate the projects ourselves for the test run. For a possible second test run, the Wikiprojects would rate each other (two projects rate one to possibly shift the blame off one project) to see if this method works. If it works, we should run the bot for real. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 04:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi - unfortunately, my phone line has gone down at home, along with my internet, so I'll not be able to run the bot until BT lay a new cable for me. Sorry about this - I've applied for a toolserver account, so in future (if I get it) will be able to easily to the link ranking method, though for now I think it would be more productive (and quicker) to use the original (Wikiproject ranking) method, pending full access to some databases, whether they be downloaded or on toolserver. Again, sorry, Martinp23 17:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: French WP:MILHIST

Ooh, neat! Do you know whether Oleg is handling the bot-work for them? Or do they have their own arrangement? Kirill Lokshin 04:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, good idea; I've added the interwiki. Kirill Lokshin 10:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

off-topic: user template

Hi, I saw the user template on your site and tried to add it to mine as well.

Problem: If I try this the template is shifted right beside the table, so more or less invisible. Question: Any ideas how to solve this?

JKW 03:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Metal is now the Core Topics COTF

You showed support for Metal at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. This article was selected as our collaboration of the fortnight. Hope you can help.

Why are you posting reminders to yourself? Because you're such an idiot you'll forget otherwise! Walkerma 16:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent contributions to Natural science, it's really improved the article! Walkerma 16:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately the article still needs much improvement. — RJH (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Family pages- phosphorus halides

Hi, thanks for the response and the pointer to phosphorus halides article. I think it could be an avenue into the element summaries to start bottom up, as this would allow links to the family pages where more detail could be presented if required. Regarding daunting tasks, firstly I am assured that the only way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time, and secondly now retired I need a challenge. One thing is certain I expect to get a lot of flack..but someone has to create the Aunt sally.
Axiosaurus 12:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Beer pong in 0.7

Could you explain a little more at that page? --AW 21:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:Chem assessing

Hi, Martin, that quick assessing of yours: you didn't happen to forget to add {{ chemicals | core | class = Foo | importance = Bar }} for automatic statistics, did you? Please? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 08:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I did, sorry about that! I've done hundreds of assessment tags, I'm not used to the core parameter. I'll redo them. Thanks, Walkerma 19:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Work via Wikiprojects

Hi. The new page looks absolutly fine, I guess we should try to get this show rolling now. I will work on it when I can, but that may not be for some time. I'll try and find some space for it though, I've usually managed to set aside some time for Wikipedia. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 20:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

thallium halides

Hi. i have created the article and I await/expect feedback. I have some similar artcicles on indium gallium and aluminium inthe pipline but will hold off until I see what I need to change in terms of style etc. If you are in the UK then do get in touch. Nice to hear from a near local! Axiosaurus 17:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the improvements. Not too sure about the rock salt pic. - after all TlI is distorted and to sad structural guys like me that is REALLY interesting. The only use I know of for Thallium is killing cockroaches! So I hope someone industrial can add to it.Axiosaurus 20:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

DuncanHarris

Who is tweaking your 0.5 page is an IT guy doing the tech stuff for us by the way. --BozMo talk 22:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Uranium peer review

If/when you have a spare moment, I would love to see your comments on uranium's peer review. :) --mav 01:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia 0.5

hi hi! i was wondering how wikipedia 0.5 progress was coming; anything new? JoeSmack ^Talk 01:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Great! I sent you an email for the beta. You're right to focus on 0.5 until it's out. I'd love to help if I can. Firstly I'd love to toy with those templates a little, if you don't mind (colors for ease of eyes, a thing or two else). Also, I think I'd like to start to learn how to officially review articles for assessment passing for 0.7. I am totally screwed monday-thursday for time, but other than that I'd love to give a little grunt work. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

initial beta thoughts: waaay less austere than i thought it'd be. this is more than a browser and a mouse, impressive. the 'find on this page' button is a pencil, and that seems kinda weird (better: magnifying glass w/word on it? highlighted text example?). the splash page is good. clicking on images doesn't bring up copyright things etc (i think i was led from the front page that images are 'clickable' for details). i found vandalism in about 3 minutes in Propaganda, the further reading section: '<3 i love wikipedia'. after external links in some places there are sometimes about 5 spaces before other characters begin (im guessing you knew that one). possible full screen view (move those big buttons out of the way)? the page flipping background distracts lead-in text, wikipedia online has done away and gone all white background to avoid this. ISBNs dont click well (i think i saw a bug about this on the bug page). i like the memory of the foward/back buttons, it's long (however if you click back really fast after many, it'll go to a blank page instead of the homepage). it doesn't remember the window size of the offline browser when you re-launch.

this is a lot of stuff, my apologies. i just sort of started and went with it. JoeSmack ^Talk 06:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

p.s. copyright potential problems? will we get in trouble when we release 0.5 with links to lyrics in the EL section like with The Supremes (offline version)? JoeSmack ^Talk 06:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

To review articles, sign up and read the instructions on this page. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 00:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think eyu100 meant this page. Walkerma 12:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikicite

Hi, Martin- I took somewhat of a hiatus from the project and have only been tinkering with it lately, but am still eager to roll it out and have several immediately useful featurs already in place. I'd like to talk about it with Eric and you to see if we can at least get a test environment up. Can you email me (same username as on my Wikimedia accounts @ gmail.com ) ?

Jonathan (Jleybov 19:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

Re: Assessment

Yes I was going by WP:MILHIST criteria. I think I will reconsider my rating of Plato, provided that someone fixes the several sections not having references thing (there's a possibility that The state may have referenced under my nose). Sulfuric acid...um...no. There are three inline cites and three general references.

As for WP:WVWP, I've already done some work for them, but would you mind telling me which articles have no parent WikiProject? And whose bright idea it was to include The Simpsons, which is still in its current run? And Lost, which hasn't gone off the air, either?

Oh, and word to the wise: your typical fandom is absolutely chock full of delusional morons who were probably introduced to the fandom via some GeoCities website or someone's FF.net page, so anything with a fandom around it needs to be sourced out the ass.--Rmky87 02:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Re: Comments requested

Ah, nice to know about the CDs; I assume you'll post an announcement on-wiki once the things are done? It'll be a sort of triumphal moment for everyone involved in 1.0/0.5/assessments/etc., I think. Kirill Lokshin 05:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Same here. A mail forwarded to Foundation-l, Wikipedia-l and WikiEN-l would also be nice; that way, the Foundation can make a formal press release if it desires to do so. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, most of the press release has already been written! Once I have a definite date I'll be sure to publicise it in-wiki as well. There has been a lot of offline activity in recent weeks! Walkerma 05:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)