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 — Archive15 — Archive16 — Archive17 — Archive18 — Archive19

This is the October 2006 archive of Martin Walker's talk page.

Discussion

I apologize; it was an oversight on my part. I had seen the news on the page and had intended to place it, but somehow overlooked it before I started writing the article on the results of the Board elections. I will make sure it's covered this week. My apologies again. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Howdy - don't know if you've been following it, but I'm sure it won't come as a surprise that the issue is still being discussed (what needs to be cited) and I'm feeling like it's not really getting anywhere. Was wondering if you and some of the other seasoned editors/admins could weigh in? I'm thinking that someone with your experience and clout will help cut through the issue and help bring it into focus. Right now, everyone's talking in circles... I'm not advocating for a particular side, BTW, just that I respect your opinion and so think whatever you make of the situation can only be good for WP, especially given your scientific background. --plange 00:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to keep my head down - I'm a coward like that! It is important, though, and so I read it through (yes all of it!) and added my 2c. I just hope I don't fan the flames! Walkerma 05:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Sorry about asking you to stick your neck out :-) I also asked Kirill and Sandy (hence Kirill's post) as you guys have a lot of respect in the community (and are involved in 3 major projects impacted by WP:CITE (MILHIST, FAR and 1.0)) and understand the nuances best! I don't think it'll fan the flames, I think it was a good dose of water, actually. I still feel kinda like a newbie and didn't feel like I was able to bring things to a consensus. Now we can hash things out back at GA on implementation. Sorry that our GA criteria change caused such a ruckus! --plange 06:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't apologise! I have been very impressed with your "newbie" contributions, which always come across to me as reasonable (we also appreciate your work on bios!). As for the ruckus, although it occasionally got silly I think in general the discussion was useful and important, and it was much more reasonable than most heated discussion on WP! If we never debated these policies they would become stale, and in fact such discussions are often cited (that word again?) by outsiders as evidence that we take these issues seriously. Walkerma 06:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool, good to know! Cheers :-) --plange 06:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Walkerma, the member for films is currently inactive and you are of the few others interested in assesment. So here is my request. I was working lately on improving (as film) a mixed novel-film article (The Magic Christian), which had, since years, started to lean on the film side. Then another user asked me to start a separate stub on the novel. Not having done any of this before, I created The Magic Christian (novel) stub (including an old version when it was still in the novel phase), which is currently being worked on. Then I created The Magic Christian (film) where I placed the developing film article. The original page is now the disambiguation page, which also contains the past edit history of the original article. I still haven't figured out the exact way and consequences of changing the main title of an article, redirecting, etc. The original article had in its discussion page a template for film w/ "Stub" status. Without knowing that it is only for the assesment team to do this, I added "Start" status in the film's template in the discussion page. I think that the article may actually be of "B" status now. If I am addressing the right person, can you please make a reassesment, or let me know to whom I should make the request? Hoverfish 18:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I took a look at the pages you mentioned. I'm not familiar enough with the film to be able to assess it really well. I'd guess that it's either a good Start-Class or very basic B-Class, not because it's a bad article but just because I could imagine that a featured article on the topic would cover the movie in a lot more depth and from lots of angles. I'm not sure what you mean by "the member for films is currently inactive" - it seems that Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films has a lot of activity these days, and I'm sure someone from there could answer your request better than myself! Failing that, talk to the Beatles WikiProject, they were one of the original test projects when we started the bot, and they could help too. Good luck, Walkerma 03:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and explanations. I am also helping in Films with Listing. When I feel I have covered more gaps in the article, I will ask in the Beatle's film project, as you say. Hoverfish 13:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! :) I hope I can help the Version 1.0 team more efficiently and be a more useful part of your project. If you need a helping hand, please contact me. NCurse _work 15:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to Organic chemistry at User talk:Bryn C:

Hi Walkerma and thanks for the courteous welcome. Those links you provided were certainly interesting - I was aware of the Jmol Project, however I did not realize it was so far along. Without question those applets are a far superior alternative. That said, I haven't created any new animations since the beginning of July, partially because they were met with mixed reactions. The community reactions you cite are anecdotal, but conclusive enough for me. I hope I haven't caused too much of a ruckus - I will do my homework before I step on any more toes. I look forward to working with you. Regards, Bryn C (^t/_c) 05:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it goes a bit beyond the 0.5 & assessment issue, actually. Many smaller/less prominent projects are, after seeing the various rating pages and everything linked there, suddenly being introduced into all the bells & whistles that other projects have adopted, and deciding to take some of them for their own use. There's definitely a great deal of viral spread going on here (including code being copied, bugs and all, across dozens of projects), and I think it will ultimately be even more successful in bringing people onboard than the older WVWP method of leaving messages was. Kirill Lokshin 23:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about the test - I wasn't thinking at all when I added that picture to chemical reaction. I think I'll leave it to you to fix it up and add some better media to article. Thanks for letting me know, I'll try to apply a little critical thinking next time I add an image :) Richard001 03:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Easiest way to do these is if someone can provide us with a list....BTW we are now thinking our next version ready in Dec will be the 2007 WP CD selection, and are tentatively thinking about distribution in the run up to Christmas --BozMo talk 08:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree the article still needs more work. I'd like to know what your ideas are for revamping it. One thing that stands out that needs to be fixed is the sentence that purports to specify a test for calcium carbonate. Seeing something fizz when HCl is dropped on it doesn't identify it as anything in particular. Other than a flame/spectrograph test, I can't think of anything that tests specifically for the presence of calcium as the cation in a carbonate sample. But I'll hunt around for a strictly hemical test. The article also needs some discussion of crystal structures and the optical bifringence of the calcite crystal. A mention that chalk and marble are both micro-crystaline forms of calcite would also be informative. Anyway, I'm happy to collaborate. Let me know where you want to go with this article. Karlhahn 04:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure I can give it a try. I am a biochemist and a programmer. Although I am always busy with research I am willing to give it a try. --Kupirijo 04:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

All the articles at WP:V0.5N have been reviewed. Eyu100 20:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Once WP:WVWP is almost finished, articles could be put into the release version like this:

• Quality:
  1. FA-Class is 8
  2. A-Class is 7
  3. GA-Class is 6
  4. B-Class is 5
  5. Start-Class is 4
  6. Stub-Class is 3

• Importance:
  1. Articles that are needed for completeness will have their importance rating doubled
  2. Top-importance is 8
  3. High-importance is 6
  4. Mid-importance is 4
  5. Low-importance is 2

The rating of an article is its quality rating times its importance rating. Articles which have a rating of 20 will automatically be included in the release version.

NOTE: the minimum rating can be increased to get better articles (at the expense of quantity) or decreased to get more articles (at the expense of quality). See the WVWP talk page for more information about WVWP and the release version.

Any thoughts? Eyu100 23:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Using a scale like that one pretty much guarantees any articles tagged as "Low-importance" would be left out, and "Top-importance" articles that are useless would be included. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that List of world's deepest lakes was recently created, it would be a good compliment to List of world's largest lakes. --Lethargy 04:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, on 11 October 2006, you tagged the iPod article for inclusion to the Wikipedia CD (version 0.5). I just wanted to ask which version of the article will be used? The iPod article tends to get vandalised a lot, and the latest version, as of 15 October 2006, is a bit bloated and has a few inaccuracies. Also, what is the deadline for it to be copied onto the CD? --IE 18:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If you think a particular version is the best choice for us to use, please let me know and I'll tag that version for inclusion.

Hi, I think this version here is best. It's ID is 78335752 and it's from 28 September 2006. It's concise, fairly accurate, and has all the info about the recent iPod updates of September 2006. Plus, it has been copy edited a lot. Also, I will try to copy-edit and trim down the current version of the article, since that is your preference for article selection --IE 18:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. The amount of vandalism the iPod article (and even its talk page) is getting is now becoming too much. Can we get it semi-protected for a while? It's getting difficult to improve it when bits and pieces become deleted/changed after editing. If it can't be protected, do you have suggestions on how to make it easier to edit? --IE 11:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. This version here is now the best one. It's ID is 87975969 and it's from 15 November 2006. It's more up to date, more accurate and concise and had lots of copy-editing.--IE 17:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. This version here is quite good (ID=97402239, from 30 December 2006). It's the one I tagged for the peer review. However, the main image at the top doesn't appear now because the image was moved to Wikimedia commons (by User:HereToHelp) with a different filename (Image:IPod 5G, nano 2G, shuffle 2G.jpg becomes Image:Image-IPod 5G, nano 2G, shuffle 2G.jpg). Also, this version doesn't have any info on the recent announcement of the iPhone. What is the deadline for submission to CD? I would like to tag a more recent version, but the current revision needs lots of copy-editing.--IE 09:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for soliciting my opinion on the Phosphorus chlorides article. See my comments at the bottom of Talk:Phosphorus chlorides.

You once mentioned the pics I made in Laboratory glassware were nice. I started this personal page to show pics I made: User:H Padleckas/Gallery. H Padleckas 01:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you also for advice on PCl5 and, indirectly, many other things. I have been posting ideas on discussion pages of specific articles (e.g. 2,2'-bipyridine) rather than consulting the whole group. I hope to get to it this week. Nice pic of NO2, BTW.--Smokefoot 04:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Henry gave a good summary on that talk page of how things have evolved, so now we tend to prefer separate pages for individual compounds, even when their names are similar (as with bipy). I hope I can be more active again in chemistry in a couple of months time. Walkerma 04:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

for the welcome & fixing the spellings will help where I can Nate1481 15:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I'll look into writing this over the start of next week, and perhaps the weekend. Once that's done, I'll put in on WP:BRFA. In the meantime, please get in touch if you have any questions, and if I have some when writing the bot, I'll ask you! (PS - the bot will run under the User:MartinBotII account (most likely)). Thanks -- Martinp23 18:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I can only apologise hugely for this - I've been suffering from some sort of food poisoning since Monday evening (when I planned to write your bot), and have, since then, been unable to properly program (ie - all I've been doing is simple stuff). I'll try to look through it today, but I'm afraid that for actually programing it, I may have to wait untiI get better :) Martinp23 09:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again - looking over the proposal again, it looks to be very possible. Can I just clarify on one or two things (please bear with me - I may not be working properly!) - is the bot to just make the list of articles above a ceratin quality and importance, and mark out any problems (making a table, for example?). Also, will it run off a category to check, or another sort of list? Sorry if I'm being dense! Martinp23 09:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply - I see what needs doing now :) I have just one further question (for now) - can you give me an example of a "Wikiproject Set" as you mentioned on my talk page? The real question I have is: are these categories, and if so, re the any existing ones for me to test with (without editting the wiki)? Thanks -- Martinp23 12:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi again - I ran the bot off the chemistry categories, without using MathBot's output (though I may do so in the next iteration). I also used the multiplication formula for the articles - I'm happy to implement a simple additon formula if required, though from my perspective (in terms of running on my system), I consider it to make a negligable difference (it should be fine too on the server, which is a lot slower, but should cope well). In the table I output, I had the articles arranged in order of number of points. For now, I haven't put the articles in categories, as I'd prefer to get permission from WP:BRFA before making hundreds of edits! You can see the table in the bot's user area here. For the date there, I'll probably take it from the mathbot output, or ask Oleg how I can do it. I have a system in place for the comments section to list tags on the articles - could you give me a provisional list of "bad words" to look for? I hope this rough starter run is OK - thanks -- Martinp23 22:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

For the bad things, I was thinking of things like tags on the article primarily, and perhaps weasel words (or better - weasel phrases). There are probably other things which are better, but I can't think of them right now! Thanks -- Martinp23 11:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

To identify any errors, I ran the bot on the other worklists you gave me - the results are linked from the makeshift User:MartinBotII/WP1.0. The only problem I found was incorrect placement of the reviews - ie on the pages themselve, but I've fixed this where I've found it. Thanks - Martinp23 17:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I'll be happy to attend :) The problem I was finding (and fixing) with some articles and images was that the actual assessment template was being posted on the article (in one case) or on the image (in two cases - both the same image). I hope the first case is more rare, but I'll program the program (?) to produce an error log of this sort of thing, rather than dying. Thanks, Martinp23 12:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You may want to have a look at this... Titoxd^(?!?) 18:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Somehow I'd thought that was tomorrow, which I couldn't make. I get confused about dates these days, because it's one day here in New York, and a different day in UTC. Thanks, Walkerma 18:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, everyone. I am a member of this once-nearly defunct project that I only started to revive this past weekend. In such a midst, I have created {{USAnimation}}, our project template, and have tagged up to 76 pages with it. Right now, I am also setting up the article quality category, and will fix up the template with that in mind. In a day or two, we will announce our WP:1.0 selection. So, as soon as I've straightened up everything, please let me know. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Martin. Is it me, or are batch distillation and continuous distillation two different types of distillation, or are they two different types of industrial distillation? In my feeling, it is the former. Could you please have a look (also the histories and talk pages, I already tried to change some things, and to explain some things). Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Quick reply, as I have to explain NMR to 20 eager students very soon. I would say BOTH. They are indeed two different modes of distillation in general. However, the distinction is usually only made by chemical engineers talking about industrial processes, and continuous distillation is rarely used outside an industrial setting. The only time I have seen something like continuous in the lab is when peopl set up the rotary evaporator with the material being slowly sucked in (Buchi has a tube for that), useful when you have 20 litres to distil! Having said that, microreactors are changing everything, and soon we may all be using continuous distillations in the lab! Walkerma 16:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly (I also used the rotary evaporator example, earlier). I am trying to get the level down to say, high school student. The entrance level in all cases is quite high, the first picture on the fractional distillation page is quite a difficult example of continuous distillation, while I think that it should be written in 'simple' language. Moreover, parts of the continuous distillation can be used when explaining GC and HPLC (the HETP and Van Deemter equation are related to the plates in a distillation column). I could use some help, or a watching eye, every now and then. Cheers. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Heya,

You may or may not be aware of the newly-created Wikipedia Weekly podcast, which has been running for two episodes with a third on its way for next week. Episode 3 will be focusing on offline Wikipedia content such as Wikipedia-CD and TomeRaider. It was suggested that you might have something to say on the matter, as an involved contributor to Wikipedia 0.5.

Would you like to come on to talk about the project? The basic requirements would be a computer with Skype and a microphone, although it'd be best if you also had a reasonably fast internet connection. We'd probably be recording at around 10am UTC, although that might be "oh-my-god o'clock" territory depending on your location and schedule.

You can get back to us by leaving a message here, leaving a message on my userpage, or dropping in to #wikipediaweekly on Freenode. --Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 09:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the message on my talk page - I'm glad to hear that you're now equipped with a microphone and such. Unfortunately, we still don't know when we're going to be able to cover it, since Tawker (who has been trying to involve Matt Swann of Wikipod in the podcast) won't be around for the next two episodes. On the one hand, this gives us a long lead-time to develop what we want to say, but it also means that we might need to hold off on talking to you for another couple of weeks.

It'd be great to talk to you personally, although I'm not sure who of the others would be best to include as well. Since we're limited to five simultaneous speakers (ie, five in the conversation at once), it might be tricky to invite a second or third guest, although not necessarily inconceivable if we can grab a hold of the necessary hardware. We'll limit it you just you for now, and see how we go, shall we? :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 04:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Up to ten" was before we found out that all computers with non-dual core and non-Intel processors are limited to just five, for marketing reasons - I should really change that. :) When will the English and Polish releases be coming out, by the way? Would it be worth trying to time an interview to be around the same date as the release? Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 05:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That's ideal! If we can catch you either on or within a few days of release (even just ISO release, rather than the published version) we could talk about your expectations and so on, and be breaking news; if we can't, then there's always the option of a "one week down the track" followup. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 05:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

funny link (in this way you don't have to open your site to the general public, still it would be nice on your site as well :-) ). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Great to see the 0.5 progress. Have you thought about having another public irc meeting to discuss where it is going, draw in some new enthusiasm? Getting BozMo and people from en:, fr:, de:, and pl: efforts together on irc would be a feat in and of itself, worthy of proclaiming from the rooftops. +sj + 23:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I had a request from someone who did a major revamp on natural disaster, an article that I demoted from A to B class in course of the V0.5 project. He asked if I think it is up to A-class again, but reading it, I think I need a second opinion (apart from it being in 0.5). Somehow it feels a bit like the article should be called 'natural hazard', because that is where the main part of the article is about (maybe coud use a bit risk assessment). And I do miss a lot of things, e.g. relation to how people concieve a natural disaster (decision of their God(s), e.g.). Could you have a look?

Talking about it, now that I have a copy of [chemistry.poolspares.com/wiki/special:chemicalsources special chemicalsources] running (waiting for reviews, and adapting the code while doing so), I could maybe help a bit more with V0.5. Where can I be of help? Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Bold text