User talk:Walkerma/Archive22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This archive covers up to the end of Aug 2008. Topics include rollback rights, CAS-Wikipedia collaboration, 1.0 (style issues, vandalism, exemplars, changes to assessment, etc), Zotero, Dispatch. For other talk page archives see User talk:Walkerma/Archives. Other close archives include: Archive10Archive11Archive12Archive13Archive14Archive15Archive16Archive17Archive18Archive19Archive20Archive21Archive23Archive24Archive25Archive26Archive27Archive28Archive29

Lead sections?

Martin, in an unrelated discussion at WT:FAC, I suddenly realized that there's almost no collection of lead sections that, without the supporting and defining text, could avoid causing trouble of one kind or another (by undefined terms, unsupported statements, or overgeneralized statements). Leads could be rewritten to fix the problem ... but if the constraint that forced us to use only leads was that we couldn't fit all the articles in the space allowed, then that's going to be a huge number of leads to rewrite. If you can give me a category or list of articles for which people are seriously considering "leads only", then I'll take a look and tell you what I think might go wrong. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm busy with Version 0.7 right now, but this sounds like a good discussion point. Let's try to discuss it next week - is that OK? Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
You bet. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject assessment templates

I'd like to upgrade a GA article to A-class but don't want to get rid the GA note. Is there a way to simultaneously rate an article as GA and A? --mav (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

CAS# file

I didn't receive it. DMacks (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


Hello, sir. It appears to me you like your job. Chris Wattson (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I support the Toon! Hull City.....huh! Of course, if they want to pay me, then maybe? Walkerma (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


I'm really sorry but I've been trying to get this to work and I'm stuck at a point where I'm pretty much useless. I'm sure someone at WP:BOTR could do this for you. Sorry to be a let down, I've been working on this until just a few minutes ago. §hep¡Talk to me! 18:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A question

Hi, according to this list here of articles selected for the 0.7 release, seven (seemlingly random) of 20 seasons of The Simpsons have been selected. It would make sense to either include all 20, or just stick to the master list (which I would prefer, because half of the seasons are in very poor quality). -- Scorpion0422 16:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I think that the centralized page for discussing this sort of thing is Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Pier Gerlofs Donia

How come the last king of the Frisians and greatest Frisian of all times has not been selected for the wikipedia release version? The article is greatly written and broad in it's coverage and the man it is about is culturally highly important for the ethnic group of the Frisians and in piracy and guerilla tactics which he used in an era those where uncommon. The article is featured within the scope of several wikipia Projects including the Frisian project of which several articles of less importance (such as Terschelling, a rather small isle) are selected. Will you please take a look into this, mr. Walkersma (oh, and does the fact your name ends with an "ma" mean you are of Frisian decendancy?) Thanks in advanche. Was signed,

Jouke Bersma —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that the Friesland project rated both articles at the same importance level, High. No problem, we can just do a manual nomination for the article. I'm not actually Frisian, just a boring English name, Walker! Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Walkerma, are you sure that when the article is manually nominated, it will be selected for the wikipedia release selection? Also, I noticed that at the nomination page, someone removed my nomination of Pier Gerlofs Donia. Who was it, why and what does it mean? I looked upon the history and saw noticed it was another unregistered account. Anyway, thank you for your time mr. Walker,

Jouke Bersma —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I restored the nomination. The anon was doing something in good faith, they approved your article for Version 0.7, and apparently didn't realize that only members of the 1.0 project can do that. Walkerma (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Oh, by the way, the article is now of top importance, making it of higher importance then the Terschelling article. Will you help me get this important article trough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Phosphorus trifluoride.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Phosphorus trifluoride.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. JaGatalk 01:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

redirects in Version 0.7 list they matter? I've been noting them; see full list of all articles at User:Ling.Nut/maychin; have a script to find redirs... Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 12:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

When we do the main article dump in October, we have a script that grabs all of the redirects at the same time. But that on-wiki list may be useful. I'm amazed you got it even to load! Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The first time I tried (with the list straight from your CSV file, including dupes) it crashed. So I rmvd all dupes. Then I tried to load the new list, and it crashed again. But when I went back to look, it had actually loaded. My unspeakably geeky goal is to WP:AWB every page. I've already knocked out a couple thousand or so. I must admit, it gets painfully boring after a while. ;-) Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 09:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank God for geeks such as yourself! If I understand you correctly, you're doing common spelling/typo/style fixes to all 30,000 articles, is that correct? If so, thank you very much ! Walkerma (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • (undent) Yeah, there are 30,506 in the original list (minus dupes). I've already done 3,000 of them, and requested help...
  • My original question was not whether you could grab all the redirs of all the articles; instead it was "Do you know that many of the items already on your list are actually redirects?".
  • Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 04:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • (Forgot to save my reply last night) Ah, that is interesting! With V0.5, where the 2000 articles were done manually, I found that selected articles got renamed perhaps once a week (and often renamed back) - this was a nuisance! As far as I can tell, this should be the only way in which an article selected for V0.7 should end up as a redirect, because the selection is taken from the talk page tags. Can you give me a selection of the redirects you've found, so I can take a look at them? BTW, we're having an IRC meeting today (Monday 22nd) at 2000h UTC to discuss V0.7, you're welcome to join us. Walkerma (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding us about this issue. The issue is that the selection script is working from a database dump, and these articles have been moved since the dump was made. At the end of the selection process, when we select the final version of each article to release, we'll have to bypass redirects to use the current titles at that time. Really, there's not much we can do before then – even if the data were up to date today, many articles would be moved over the next month. It's remarkable how unstable article titles are, even for core topics. If it would help in any way, I can make a list today of all articles on the selection list that are currently redirects. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't need a list of that kind. I was just pointing this out to y'all. Later, Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 14:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks a lot! I'm surprised that so many have moved since the dump, probably the V0.5 article titles were more stable (being FAs or on mature topics). We'll have to take care over this when we move forward. Interesting, we may find we have a VersionID selected with one name, and a later version found under a new name - that could be tricky! Walkerma (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not an issue, permanent links still work even if the page is renamed. For example, now goes to a different page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Version 0.7 articles

I left a question on the talk page of the Version 0.7 article and was wondering if you'd be able to answer it. Our project wants to get right to finding the correct revisions, cleaning up articles, etc. but we need to know which ones we should select based on the recent updates in our assessments. If you're not the right person to ask, could you please direct me to someone who may know? Thanks and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

We've replied to your response. Sorry for being so eager, but we want to get to choosing the revisions as soon as possible. Thanks for taking a look. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Replied again. Thanks for helping out. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Do we need to change the list of articles at User:SelectionBot/0.7/F-1 to match the ones that our project selected after the discussion? Or will that cause errors with the bot? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I still need to raise that list formally with the group, I'll try to do that tomorrow. I don't see any problem, and then we'll just add them into the manually selected article list, like a set nomination. Walkerma (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Version 0.7 reviewing

Hi Walkerma. Unfortunately, I expect to be really busy IRL until Friday, and although it might be of little help, I can try whenever I'm around. I'll certainly be able to spend more time after that period has passed - what's the deadline? Cheers for the note - Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Bob Dylan FAR

Hi Walkerma, Bob Dylan is currently undergoing FARC [[1]]. Your opinion would be welcomed. Thanks, Mick gold (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

0.7 selection and films

Just wanted to let you know that I replied to some of your comments here. (I know that older threads sometimes are overlooked even by their participants.) Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Another question - the selection bot lists, where the "right" revisions are supposed to be placed, obviously hasn't updated for WP Film's re-selection, nor would it be reflected in the bot's lists for the task forces. Should I emend accordingly, or is someone already on top of it? (The task force lists really can be junked entirely.) I have our coordinators going through the new list and picking revisions, hopefully to be completed by the 20th. Please do let me know if I have anything wrong. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean when you say that you're going to look over the ones just under 1250? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Aha - then I think we have a different discrepancy! I misunderstood what the scope points were in relation to the raw score, so each of the articles got differing scope points...It sounds like what you're saying is that every article (regardless of importance?) should get an extra 99 points? In any case, if I did scope points wrong, then I might have to re-calculate the whole thing. I don't expect a large difference altogether, but this might have to be re-done. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


When exactly will there be a release of certain wikipedia articles, Version 0.7? Will they be on DVD, CD or written? And if they will be written down, where can it be purchased? Is there yet a date set or anything? I looked for those questions but could not find any clear answers. -The Bold Guy- (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If I had to guess at this point, I'd say (a) early December; (b) DVD; (c) Really not too sure at this point, it's up to the publisher, though is definite, is fairly likely, and places like WalMart, Best Buy, are possible. I think we are doing what is needed at the community end to meet those deadlines, but there are quite a few hurdles for the publisher too- a problem with any of those could postpone the release until early next year. Our main French collaborator is back from his vacation next week, and so we will probably have an IRC meeting soon where we can firm up these things a lot more. Walkerma (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that answers my question, Walkerma. One more thing: do all the articles that are currently on the list of "Release Version" articles get on that DVD instantly, in their current form? Or do all those articles appear on there but might be slightly altered by specialists on the given subject? -The Bold Guy- (talk) 06:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

They will appear pretty much as they do now, though a few formatting changes will be made. We've asked the specialists (the WikiProjects that maintain the specific articles) to clean up articles as best they can, and to select a nice version of each one. After we do the actual dump of articles, the only other cleanup we do is a check for "bad words" (expletives, etc), to look for vandalism. Walkerma (talk) 07:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Btw, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Friesland which I co-founded has seven articles selected by selectionBot and 1 manually (Pier Gerlofs Donia). Will Pier Gerlofs Donia, our best article of the highest importance, be on the release? I think it will, since you added it to the list. Still, Mata Hari was also Frisian. She is within our scope and selected by SelectionBot but is she yet on the ReleaseVersion page? I personally think of Mata Hari as a very important historical figure since she was the original femme fatale, isn't she? -The Bold Guy- (talk) 07:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The manually selected articles and the bot-selected articles still need to be consolidated into one list, but yes, all from both lists will be included, including Donia and Mata Hari. The manual list only shows <10% of the total selection. Walkerma (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, great! What about this one: Dorus Rijkers, saved the lives of over 500 people from drowning at sea. B-class, DYK (Did you Know, appeared on main page). Is that enough grounds for selection? -The Bold Guy- (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC) -The Bold Guy- (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably not a major enough historical figure to make it onto this list - which (remember) can only contain the top 2% of Wikipedia. But it might be nice for a release of articles about the Netherlands? Walkerma (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As a historical figure, he is of little to no importance at all. But as a hero, he is. He is notable for having saved many, many lives at sea. There aren't much people of which can be said they have saved the lives of over 500 people from drowning at sea. But if you say it is of no relevance in here, then so be it. After all, I can be happy with at least one article in there and otherwise other articles would not have a chance. Good luck and take care! -The Bold Guy- (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and btw: do you people still need users to help with the entire Release Version project?


Hiya Martin. You assigned an A rating to Robot a year ago. It's just been delisted from GA to B; would you have any objection to my delisting it as A as well? (Not to fear, we have an idea what to fix, I just need to free up some time to do it.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No objection at all. We at 1.0 used to tag things that looked particularly good as A, but we're generalists, not specialists. I wouldn't be surprised that there are flaws in the article. Walkerma (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Portal vandalism

Another example was [2] which we picked up manually. The fact the portals have all these transcluded pages makes it very hard to specify clean versions. But they do look good in my view SchoolsWP:index:subject.Portals--BozMo talk 10:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Our database

We have had queries from a couple of other projects so have put an FAQ here Wikipedia:Wikipedia_CD_Selection. If you do decide to do anything manually do let me know and we'll fix something up for you. --BozMo talk 20:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that page is really helpful! How is the release going? Walkerma (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Well online we are up to 12500 unique IPs a day from about 7000 before the release... see [3] which gives an Alexa rank of 78,000 for the last few days. We aren't offering downloads for another week and we are about to unveil our new tour bus feature (setting up animated tours through the content on a given topic). So all in all, well. --BozMo talk 16:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh by the way SOS gets free google Adwords from google grants (kind souls that they are), so if you try googling for "Child Encyclopaedia" "child reference" etc etc the Schools Wikipedia comes up (click through if you see it). We have had many thousands of click thrus from these. Funnily other than this all our traffic comes from Yahoo and bookmarks: we hardly show at all in main google searches. --BozMo talk 17:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

SDF software

I think I remember seeing someone-I-think-you asking about free SDF viewer that allowed one to copy the text fields. Can't find the comment off-hand, but MarvinView (licensed approximately "free for academic") has this ability. Figured I'd better tell someone when "I remembered the question" and "I remembered I knew an answer" coincided:) DMacks (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, per your email. DMacks (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm currently testing out "PowerMV" which Tony recommended - a bit clunky, but at least it works! I wanted to do a few entries and find out the main issues before I respond to your comments. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


Hi Martin, I've fixed the structure. How's the validation going? Can I help? Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, check your inbox. I would indeed like a copy of the SDF file. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

G&S for the tech challenged

Hi there. On the Thespis (opera) talk page, you wrote: "I would strongly recommend putting together a collection for a print release on G&S...." Can you tell me what you mean by this? I don't exactly understand the whole Version .07 or Version 1.0 thing, and I'm not very tech savvy in general - I'm just a G&S/musicals fan who got into writing/improving WP articles. LOL. So, if you could give me an idea of what this is really all about, and how we can help, I might be of more use to you in the G&S area (please don't use any abbreviations!) Thanks, and good luck with whatever it is that you're doing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, maybe I'm jumping the gun, but it looks like you included Iolanthe and The Gondoliers, but not The Mikado, which is the most popular G&S show. Also, the article on W. S. Gilbert is FA, so shouldn't it be included? Finally, the articles on Gilbert and Sullivan and Arthur Sullivan are GA class. So, I'm not sure what the inclusion criteria are, in addition to my other more basic question above. Sorry if I am being premature, and you're in the middle of... er... whatever it is that you're doing! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
For Musicals, I would suggest Hair (musical) and possibly Bernadette Peters, both of which are GA. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses!
  • This would be separate from 0.7 or anything else. Only a little technology involved - we're talking books like these (from the German Wikipedia). We (the 1.0 team) have been talking with the Wikimedia Foundation about working with a publisher to produce books of selected articles, typically in areas where we have a strong set of articles. If the G&S WikiProject could put together a nice, comprehensive set of G&S articles (the key writers & performers, the 15 operas, as well as the theatre & company), then we could work with you to produce a publication. Exactly how that would look, particularly whether large-scale or small-scale release, would depend on the publisher, but I think this is a definite possibility. I was quite impressed with the G&S articles I looked at. You don't need to put it together yet, just let us know if you're interested. (Note: The Tropical Cyclones people is definitely interested in a book release.)
  • Ssilvers - I only reviewed the ones manually nominated, these were nominated because they were NOT in our original selection. All of the ones you mentioned such as the Mikado are already selected for 0.7, so they don't need a manual review.
  • I'll check to see if we have Hair and Peters - good proposals - if we don't, I'll consider your comment as a formal nomination.
Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Do the articles on Mikado, Gilbert, Sullivan and G&S need the Version 0.7 tag on their talk pages? As for a print publication of our G&S articles, thanks for your kind words, but we are working towards getting all of our core articles up to at least GA class, so I would rather wait for awhile, as I consider most of them to be works in progress. Shoemaker may disagree, but that's my opinion. Of course, if there is a Biography publication, I think that both the Gilbert and the Sullivan articles are OK for publication now as are the Grossmith and Barrington articles. As for the Musicals project, it's too bad that there aren't more GA-class articles. It's a never-ending battle against fancruft over there. But, things are in better shape than they were two years ago, and steady, if slow, progress is being made. It would take quite a while to go thru all the B-class articles (many of which should only really be assessed at C-class) to see which of them are the best ones. It is also hard to agree on which of them are the most "important" ones. I know that Wicked is a pretty good article as is Hairspray. Elaine Paige is also an FA article. In any case, Happy Editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Auto-pass if the bot selects an article

Hey there, you noticed that I, ahem, "nominated" a number of articles which the bot already selected. Maybe that was redundant, but I wasn't sure. :) It just looks a lot nicer to see that green dot on the article's talk page, I think, so that everyone knows the article is up for consideration. Are you planning on getting that added to anything which the bot selected, so that it's more clear, or if not should I "nominate" more as I did, or can I assume it's OK to add the "WP1.0|v0.7=pass|class=XX|category=Langlit" to any comic book articles the bot has selected and you all will take it from there? BOZ (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to manually nominate any that were selected by the bot. Anything with a score of 1250+ is automatically selected, unless the project wants it removed. We have over 30,000 selected by the bot, and there are three of us actively reviewing right now, and so we would be pretty busy! The manual scheme is to allow us to fix things that might get missed by the bot - we've seen articles that "almost made it" and have become FAs/GAs since the bot did its run; we've had things where six out of seven got picked, and the seventh just didn't make it, and so on. Some time soon we will find some way to tag all of the article talk pages as part of 0.7, but until then the projects will just have to refer to the article lists on the toolserver. The SelectionBot is very new, and this is the first time we've used it, so we're having to write scripts as we go along! Thanks for the "nominations" anyway - it's good to hear from you. Walkerma (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Tell you what then - I don't want to disrupt your flow, but if there's anything I can do to help, I will. :) I organized a page for the comics project which updated the assessments to give us a better idea of what we're working with. Some of the most important articles of B or higher quality chosen by selectbot that don't yet have the "Approved" stamp include the following: The Adventures of Tintin, Calvin and Hobbes, Captain Marvel (DC Comics), Krazy Kat, Megatokyo, Alan Moore, Graphic novel, Lex Luthor, Batgirl, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Homestar Runner, Barbara Gordon ("Batgirl" is about all characters with that name - Barbara is the most famous), Manga, Wonder Woman, Peanuts, Hulk (comics), Wolverine (comics), Dilbert, Daredevil (Marvel Comics), Hergé, Will Eisner, Thor (Marvel Comics), Doctor Doom, Aquaman, Doonesbury, Garfield, Charles M. Schulz, Bob Kane, Dick Tracy, Legion of Super-Heroes, Akira (manga), Galactus, V for Vendetta, Bill Watterson, Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster, Manhua, American comic book, Henry Pym, André Franquin, Spirou et Fantasio, Apocalypse (comics), Dennis the Menace (U.S.), and Howard the Duck. If you like, I can add the template to the talk pages for you and let you catch up to them as time allows, or if you prefer, we can just "let nature take its course" as with the other thousands of articles chosen by selectbot. :) I have notified people that if they want to manually nominate any more, they'd better hurry up and get at it. BOZ (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
There's certainly no need to start adding templates to talk pages - they will get the "stamp of approval" soon enough if we let "nature (or the bot) take its course". What would be best (for the next 23 hours or so) would be to select good VERSIONS of those articles, and to post the choices here. We have scripts that attempt to find unvandalised versions, but we much prefer to use versions selected by a human expert rather than ones chosen by a few lines of Perl. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I will spread the word and leave the rest up to you. Peace, and good luck! :) BOZ (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

-The Bold Guy-

-The Bold Guy-, one of the people who has been working on Wikipedia:Release Version has been indefinetely blocked, despite the fact his edits were all constructive, which clearly is a mistake. In any case, the user is indefinetely blocked so when nobody will be requesting him to be unblocked (his right to edit his own talk page has been taken), he will have to be removed from the list of reviewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

0.7 Release, Frederick III, German Emperor

Thanks for all of the work you did at the 0.7 release nominations page. Anyway, I see you marked Frederick III, German Emperor as already passed, but I'm wondering where it says that exactly? Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place but here it doesn't have the article: [4] Anyway I was just wondering so I can update the tag on the talk page, either by marking it passed and which category it is in or just taking it off. Thanks for your help. --Banime (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Many articles can be selected by one project and not by another - especially since this one was only rated Start by WP:Germany, but B-Class by WP:Military History. So this one was selected by the latter project, see [5]. It was a good choice to nominate, though, because it was important but only Start-Class and it's now A. Since we're past the deadline, I haven't usually tagged the bot-passed ones (they're in anyway, and will soon have a 0.7 template), but I can tag this one. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't know that, thanks for helping. --Banime (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Webley Revolver

Walkerma, thank you for taking the time and effort to nominate Webley Revolver for inclusion in the 0.7 Release version. Your effort and work is much appreciated, and I notice that mere minutes ago, Webley Revolver was selected for inclusion. Thanks again for nominating it, and also, so you know, I had already planned on thanking you, it being selected right before I thanked you is a happy coincidence. Cheers,
LWF (talk) 04:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Gold star editors

In case you didn't get the email I might as well give credit here. This is the short list of prolific editors who we found consistently reverted all vandalism rather than revert the single most recent item from recent changes. Therefore their versions of articles if available were the starting point:

Bobo192 Jfdwolff Ukexpat Iridescent Jclemens Juliancolton Str1977 Da monster under your bed Closedmouth Thingg J.delanoy Graham87 RJHall MZMcBride AlexiusHoratius Epbr123 Sardanaphalus Jimfbleak Kaldari David Underdown CalendarWatcher Vsmith

Sorry its not longer. --BozMo talk 08:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I did get the email, but must've been slow to respond. Many thanks! Walkerma (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

CD etc.

  • Hi I managed to AWB 8,000 of the total number of articles that are going on the CD— then collapsed from burnout. In fact, the experience sapped my wiki-strength to the point where I'm considering a 2-week break (other real-life issues are pressing as well.
  • I'll email you, if your email is enabled. Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 03:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


By the way, Gary Gygax was recently recognized as a GA, which should help its standing for getting on 0.7. :)

I just noticed that there was apparently finally another recent data dump. Maybe you know, and maybe you don't, but do you have any idea if there will be another set of bot generated pages similar to the ones used to list all the selected articles for 0.7? As in, will another one be generated in the not-too-distant future using this most recent data set to make selections for the next release? I ask because the ones generated from the last one have been very useful for the various wikiprojects I work on to see what articles particularly need work on quality (see Gygax above) and it would be super handy to have an updated one that took all the changes in the last 3-4 months into account. :) BOZ (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion, I raise this with the relevant people. Now the bot code has been written, it's easy to run; the main thing we need to do is to get a system set up that allows people to see the selection. We could perhaps have the main WP1.0 bot (that collates assessments for projects) provide a URL whenever a new dump has been examined by SelectionBot - I'll let you know what gets done. I'm really glad it's been of help - it helps to confirm what I've always believed, that the 1.0 project is as much about helping the online Wikipedia get better as it is about producing offline releases, because the latter promotes the former. I'll check into Gygax, though my main concern at this late stage is to catch really prominent "must adds" like Sarah Palin and Global financial crisis of September–October 2008. Of course these will date fast, but better to see them in than out, I think. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Gygax was in the selection bot mix, so he has that going for him; I've just been trying to promote various articles that were selected to make them even better when you are ready to actually compile the articles. As for the others you mention - that's a good point! Since they one is a major recent event effecting much of the world, and the other is went from being a minor US politician to being a major figure of note and potentially more in the near future, neither would have been part of the last selection bot so would depend on being nominated. I'd also suspect that they both change frequently, since they are hot topics. :) But you are absolutely right that the online Wikipedia and the 1.0 project do fuel each other, at least in terms of participants who pay attention to that sort of thing. When I saw what was on selectionbot's report, for example, I could better see what items were mis-assessed, or not assessed at all. With the D&D project, for example, only two articles were selected, yet we had Dragonlance, Gary Gygax, and Wizards of the Coast on different Wikiprojects, and as I pointed out previously Forgotten Realms was unassessed at the time. I also added a whole bunch of articles that project and got hundreds of articles assessed. It's a minor wikiproject, but you can see how we were affected. The comicsproject also pulled together; we had been working on the assessments of our major articles, but selectionbot's report better helped us define what needed attention, and what was missing among our "major" articles. so, carry on! :) BOZ (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

E. J. Corey article

As someone who has commented on this in the past, would you have time to take a look at this? I've re-read the talk page, and I'm still concerned that that section currently in the article on the graduate suicides is not a balanced view of the issues. Carcharoth (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)