This archive covers up to the end of September 2007. 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 — Archive16 — Archive17 — Archive19

Hi Walkerma,

the articles unsolved problems in biology, unsolved problems in chemistry, and unsolved problems in medicine have again be nominated for deletion. Maybe you find some time at the meeting to comment on the discussion pages Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in biology (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in chemistry, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in medicine 2.

Thanks, Cacycle 00:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Cacycle 04:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Martin

I stumbled on this at Template:Cite_journal#Useful links. Thought you might be interested.

Quite peeved that some random admin deleted the images containing my endnote settings. I think there is a wider applicability outside our wikiproject too. Any advise? --Rifleman 82 02:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(Answering here to maintain thread) Wow, that's really useful! I was waiting to see people inside WP do that, but no one has! I think that formatting the cites properly has actually slowed down my WP input of chemistry a lot, because you spend longer entering the citations than you do writing the content. Thanks a lot! I'll start using it immediately!

I've also been meaning to mention to you, I stumbled across [Zotero] recently, which is a broader tool for doing this sort of thing. It claims to be an open-source, not-for-profit version of an EndNote type system, but with easy use on websites (such as WP). It's developed by a group of academics, with US govt. support. I've downloaded it, and successfully imported a few refs., but I confess I had trouble getting the cites into the proper format for WP (but then I've only just started with it). Walkerma 03:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Aluminium chloride.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 09:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's really an issue with a recent change to how MediaWiki handles images. See the Commons Village Pump and Bug 10128. It should be back by now. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had a spare hour (or three :P) and I gave a full overhaul to the Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Held nominations page, merging it with Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Held Article Discussions, merging the content of both pages, updating instructions, etc, etc, etc. Mind having a look to see how it looks? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

All right, check the sandboxes now. How do they look? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Now, I've got a favor to ask myself... ;) Have a look at Wikipedia:Flagged revisions. How useful do you think that process/software extension can be to the 1.0 project? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Walkerma, I've added those 3 projects to the assessment script. –Outriggr § 03:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I notice you updated Talk:Joseph Haydn with the FA-class assessment, but as far as I can tell, the article is not FA-class and hasn't passed FAC. I see you were just copying the assessment someone put in another box, so it is an understandable mistake. Carcharoth 16:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Martin. I guess I have to ask you a favor completely unrelated to WP:1.0. I currently have Tropical cyclone on FAC, and I was wondering if you could go over it and give it a copyedit, to fix any glaring things you may find there. The data should all be there, it just needs fresh eyes to see things that may be plain wrong. If you could do that, I'd greatly appreciate it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Walkerma, I replied to your posting at [[1]] regards Mick gold 15:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I will definitely keep an eye over there. Sorry if I have been a little silent - but a good chunk of the articles awaiting review in the arts section I nominated, so waiting for a better chunk to come in for me to hammer out. But will keep those pages on watch for any questions/developments. --Ozgod 04:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding WP:Core COTF, I nominated 3 articles, but frankly I don't have much time to work on them, even if they were to be selected. :( I'll try keep it updated when I get the chance. Have fun to wherever it is you're going. Cheers! Mahanga^Talk 02:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the wishes. I'm all right, just busy as hell, as I have a full load during summer school, which I took so I can take some electives next semester. Enjoying meatspace helps too. I'll probably be "more back" (whatever that means :P) after next week, and I'll keep an eye on V0.7 in the meantime. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. I'll keep up with developments at 1.0 as best I can, but might be a bit late in responding if anything happens Sunday morning. John Carter 18:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You are listed as a participant in the Philately WikiProject. Today I have created an inactive list consisting of those participants who have not made any philatelic edits for more than six months. I was going to use a 3 month cut off point but felt generous. You may be one of those editors, so if I have moved you and you want to remain an active participant, please forgive me, and move your name back from the inactive list to the active list. If you are still active on Wikipedia but are inactive in philately I hope there is no harm done in listing you as inactive. We really need more active participants for all philatelic articles. The Philately Portal has been running for some time and I am doing occasional updates, Postage stamps of Ireland is a candidate for featured article (that would be the first philatelic article), and several of the redlinks have been filled but we need more activity so if you are around please participate. Otherwise thanks for the work you have done in the past. Cheers ww2censor 00:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been inactive in philately, mainly because my other activities have totally dominated my time. I also realised that I'm more of a straight stamp collector, and I like the deep knowledge of postal history that is needed here. I did try scanning a couple of stamps, but their colours came out terrible, so in the end I gave up! I am doing a copyedit of the FAC to polish it - the commas seem to go awry in several places - and I will leave some comments on the FAC. If you write any other FACs in the future, feel free to contact me for tasks like this, if you find my copyedits/comments helpful. Walkerma 05:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: Please check my edits carefully, to make sure I didn't change the meaning from your original intent. There were one or two places where I interpreted things a little. Things I was unsure on were commented on at the FAC.

Thanks for your kind words. Unfortunately, my professional and personal life have both undergone serious changes, which means I don't have much time to wiki anymore. I have some limited time today and I'll see what I can do. Errabee 10:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You are a geordie smackhead and Sunderland has a far better history and population than newcastle. We will also beat you in november. 81.132.77.133 14:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hadaway man! Walkerma 00:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week carbon dioxide was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

Spamsara 22:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Again thanks for your review and comments. I have "done" everything you suggested and left detailed comments on the FAC page. I really appreciate your detailed suggestions and have attempted to be as detail orientated in fixing the problems as you were in suggesting fixes. Cheers ww2censor 04:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That was quick. Thanks for the support. ww2censor 05:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The other reviewer User:Pagrashtak came back today but still has a few issues that I really don't know what to do with. Perhaps you could offer some advise in regard to his two outstanding comments. I think I have picked up all the ndashes he sees (actually I think I introduced several more new ones with the new inline citations). He still has issues: "The lead is insufficient. There are too many headings and subheadings for the current text. For example, "Postage dues" has many one-sentence subheadings." I tightened up the "Stamp issuing authorities" by removing the bold titles and in the "Postage dues" section I have created two bold group headings (not TOC headings) and taken away nearly all of the paragraphs for the whole section. I could write much more for many of the sections as there are books complete books on many of them but the article is already long at 39kb. What do you think? Regarding the lead I could add some more text as précis of what follows; I think that is what he wants but he is not very explicit, so I am a little bit lost. The lead was shorter with an "introduction" section starting with the 2nd para, but that felt just too short. So an expended lead section is available for comment in my sandbox. I appreciate any advise you can offer as FAs seem to be in your area of interest. TIA ww2censor 01:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

When I first glanced at your remarks, I missed the sandbox version, and I did a little copyedit of the actual lead. I was scratching my head thinking how to expand the lead, but your sandbox version solved the problem nicely. I think there were some parts that are unimportant in the lead section (the failed essays and all the details of the postal stationery), so I did a major copyedit, but I think the general idea is excellent. I'm pretty tired so my copyediting skills may be compromised, please check my edits carefully and feel free to revert.

I would suggest that you request a little more detail from Pagrashtak, who seems a pretty reasonable person, and offer the sandbox version as a possible longer lead section - see if he/she likes it. I'm going to be offline for a couple of days. Cheers, Walkerma 07:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Since my last post here, I have done a lot of extra work based on other reviewers comments and maybe it is near sufficient support by most reviewers to pass. Thanks for your support. ww2censor 05:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) Just a quick thank you for participating in the Postage stamps of Ireland FAC. Your input was very useful and I have learned a lot from the process. Whether you raised issues, assisted with some cleanup, opposed or supported the article, thanks again for all you do for Wikipedia and especially thanks for the cocktail though I would prefer a Guinness instead but will have some real ones in September in Ireland. Cheersww2censor 15:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 23:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(This is a copy of what I just posted to my own talk page)

It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness. I would love to be a part of thw Wikipedia 1.0 team. I have been thinking "All of the articles have been written, so I don't really know how to improve the Wikipedia at this point", and this gives me a chance to make Wikipedia a better place. Samboy 23:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, with this edit you said you passed 10 articles, but it doesn't show in the talk pages of these articles; they all say they are nominees. Could you please look at them again? Thanks! Errabee 08:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, I must've been tired! I removed some I didn't review from the list, and then I forgot to update talk pages on others! I'll fix it after work today. Thanks for finding that, and I apologize for the mistake. Walkerma 12:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Wikipedia 0.7 pass on the vacuum article - I put a lot of work into it. I've been disheartened by a lot of attacks from the immature folk, and it's nice to get a pat on the back now and then. It motivates me to do some more work on it, especially in the measurement section.--Yannick 00:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm 1.0 wikiproject welcome. I will do my best to make wikipedia ever better as time permits :).petze 11:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi walkerma. How can we question the quality of an article which has already been accepted? Can we ask for a re-review or something of the sort? Miskin 19:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I wanted to know because I often run into high-importance low-quality articles which have been already included in one of the versions. It's true, although I've nominated many articles I haven't had the courage to proceed with reviews yet. Miskin 17:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually while mooching around the FAs, after the promotion of Postage stamps of Ireland, I discovered that Mail was an FA from April 2004 until it was demoted in May 2006. The reason given was that it mainly had no references. Maybe it is not too far from being capable of promotion again. What do you think? I am prepared to work on it if you thought it is achievable. Cheers ww2censor 03:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think it's achievable, and it's also a major topic - well worth doing. It will be quite a bit of work, though - are you prepared to do that? I can't work too much on anything but WP:V0.7 these days, and a little chemistry, but I'd be happy to do a proof read + copy edit as I did for the Ireland article. Walkerma 03:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if anyone else will get involved and I will get back to you when/if it progresses any further. I still need to look it over properly before committing myself to it. I also need to be sure I have the resources to quote reliable references as much philatelic refs are not online. Thanks ww2censor 04:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw you name mentioned on the Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot page and wondered if you can assist me. I would like to add assessments to the Philately WikiProject. Is this something you can assist with? We already have a project banner {{Philately}} that might be modified to include assessments and classes but it all looks a bit intimidating to me. Cheers ww2censor 00:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can help - but I'd like to wait till I get home (I'm at a conference in Boston), my internet contact and my time are rather iffy at the moment. Walkerma 03:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, wait until you get home. This is not an urgent issue. I will be around for the next 2 weeks until I go to London & Dublin for about 10 days. Thanks ww2censor 04:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Noticed your test template on Rowland Hill and wondered if you should add the "image-needed=" parameter. Nested works as I tested it. I presume several assessment pages need to be created and the bot needs to be set up to collect the statistics. If you need me to do anything, just ask. Cheers & thanks ww2censor 04:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the image-needed parameter; if you or anyone else knows how to add that, please do. I don't want to tinker with the template, I'm out of my depth there! Walkerma 02:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We have just been working on the {{WikiProject Ireland}} and I know that it includes an "image-needed" parameter that generates this page. Maybe that template will give you a clue how to modify this one. Otherwise it looks good and ready to go. I believe Stan is away, so he will be unlikely to post a comment soon. Cheers ww2censor 02:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Should we wait till Stan returns? I know he's a stalwart of WP:Philately. Walkerma 03:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind waiting but maybe we can have things pretty much ready, though Stan does not seem to have been doing many philatelic edits of late. Whatever you think is ok with me as there are so few of us doing any philatelic Wikiwork. One question. Do you know if there is a way to see the traffic to particular pages, in particular the Portal:Philately. Thanks ww2censor 03:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait till I have a bit of time - or else you're welcome to move it to the official template yourself if you wish. I will also try to help a bit with assessments. Be aware that the two articles I tagged have already been found by the bot, and the Philately project is now on the bot's main list! See for example these statistics. Regarding the Philately Portal, this information is available via the toolserver (I think), but it would require writing something especially to find that information. We have a bot being written (hopefully) for the 1.0 project which may be able to retrieve such information, as part of its larger work - I'll keep your request in mind in case an opportunity arises. In the meantime, I tagged it for del.icio.us and saw that two other people have the portal bookmarked on delicious. Based on my experience, I'd say this was not spectacular, but it is decent; probably for every 2 people bookmarking on delicious there are 200 bookmarking on Firefox/IE, I'd say. The chemistry portal has 13 others, but I have promoted this (featured) portal on several occasions in prominent places and I may not be alone. Walkerma 05:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) So, Stan has indicated his non-objection to having philatelic assessments, but I suppose it will be up to you and me to actually do the assessment for the time being. Do you think you could finalise the template? If possible add the image-needed parameter otherwise I will ask another user who helped on another template to look at it. Just let me know if you want me to do that. Cheers ww2censor 14:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I've been trying to find out what kind of discussions are going on in the push for stable versions, or at least some form of validated article. Every essay, group, and wikiproject seems to be inactive. I saw your page, Wikipedia:Pushing to validation, so I figured I'd direct this question toward you: What exactly is happening in the discussions about release/stable versions? Is there a centralized place (a group or Wikiproject) where those who support the idea discuss? How is the idea progressing?

Thanks for your help, AdamBiswanger1 22:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm glad to see that that there is some progress on the frontier of article validation. I've always been a supporter of the idea, but I always thought it would be struck down by those who treasure the encyclopedia's open-access to all over its reliability. I'm glad to see another Wikipedian so close- I would certainly organize, or at least participate in some kind of wiki-meeting, but I haven't heard of a single person here who is an editor! Quite strange, considering this is one of the largest and most active websites in the universe. But thank you for your response, and I'm glad to see that we are one step closer to an authoritative encyclopedia. Thanks again, AdamBiswanger1 14:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know- I added myself to the mailing list. Regards, AdamBiswanger1 17:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The Alcohol article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hai,

You removed the article Ayyavazhi from this Wikipedia:Version 0.7/Core supplement page; and noted that it should be debated first. Where to? Th ediscussion page of the article is still a red link. Also this Ayyavazhi article is an important religion topic. - white dot...!!! 11:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The Version 0.7 core supplement is more or less a checking off page used for WP:V0.7, based on WP:CORESUP, which is itself a supplement WP:CORE, the Core Topics list. (Sorry about the Byzantine structure, that's what happens when you're short-handed!). The discussion should probably happen at either WP:CORE or at the Version 0.7 page- the latter is more active so I've set up a redirect there.

I really don't think that you will convince people that Ayyavazhi is on of the 300-400 most important topics belonging in an encyclopedia. Core Topics lists four articles in the Philosophy & Religion section - Mythology | Logic | Philosophy | Religion . In the supplement, we have Beauty, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Ethics, Free will, God, Heuristics, Islam, Judaism, Metaphysics, Soul, Spirituality, Mysticism, Taoism, Truth. I believe Hinduism was on the list too. So you need to convince us that Ayyavazhi is more important to the religious world than Hinduism, or Jesus, or Mohammad. We look at things like interwiki links and links in to assess article importance. I think it's very unlikely to make the list. However it IS very likely to pass for Version 0.7 - and that's the list that really matters. Walkerma 15:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

How ever Ayyavazhi is not known than Jesus and Hinduism in the religious world. But those articles (Jesus, Hinduism..) are some how under that list (in Miscellaneous section I think). So i feel Ayyavazhi may deserves a place there anywhere, at lease in the Miscellaneous. - white dot...!!! 14:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the core lists is that we try to keep the number of articles the same. That means if you want to add one article, you need to remove another of lower importance. So we would need to delete Hinduism in order to include Ayyavazhi, which seems wrong to me. Walkerma 00:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the list you edited was just a checklist for reviewing, and we generally freeze these anyway while reviewing (you can't review a "moving target"), the same applies to the Vital Articles list we are using. I looked over the article, and I've included it in Version 0.7. It seems very comprehensive, though perhaps rather heavy on references (better that than too light, though!). The main work remaining would seem to be improving the language, which is terribly ungrammatical in places, but I see that the league of copyeditors is working on that. Other than that, it looks like a very nice article, thanks for the nomination. Walkerma 01:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Why, to include Ayyavazhi, Hinduism should be removed? Buddhism is there, Jainism etc too. Dont't declare that Ayyavazhi is a part of Hinduism (though I believe so to some extend). Ayyavazhi seems seperate from Hinduism and relation of Ayyavazhi and Hinduism is similar to that of Jainism to Hinduism and Buddism to Hinduism. See the large number of reference to support this, in the article. i personally feel that in this sense Ayyavazhi deserves a place there in Vital articles and core article lists too.

Any way thanks very much for its inclusion in release version 7. As mentioned in that template will Ayyavazhi be released with all the subsequent release versions?

Also, can you pls tell when this version will be released and how i can get a copy? - white dot...!!! 10:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Then, regarding copy-edit to improve the language of the article, it seems labouriouse; The article is under request for copyedit before 7 months and is still there and is the first in the list. (Some others too seems waiting for the copy-edit to be done and immedietly to nominate it as a featured article candidate.) My be because of the vast reference, users may find it difficult to work on. Is there any other ways to get it copy-edited quickly? Myself's is a low-quality english; otherwise i may've done it. Can you give some suggestions. Thanks once again - white dot...!!! 10:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It will probably be released next year. A lot depends on us getting a bot written, until that is done it's hard to predict. Yes, it will be in all future general releases from now on. As for the copyediting, that is a major task for any article of such length, but it tends to be even harder if you're not familiar with the topic and the "heavy" language. I may have a go at doing some copyediting this week for you - some of the mistakes are very simple (singular/plural things like "these men says") and I can hopefully catch most of these. I'd then ask you to read over my "corrected" version to make sure I didn't introduce any new factual errors. Walkerma 15:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Kindly give your suggestions for the following things also, (those i wrote above you might not have noted.) Thanks very much for all other informations and helps

Why, to include Ayyavazhi, Hinduism should be removed? Buddhism is there, Jainism etc too. Dont't declare that Ayyavazhi is a part of Hinduism (though I believe so to some extend). Ayyavazhi seems seperate from Hinduism and relation of Ayyavazhi and Hinduism is similar to that of Jainism to Hinduism and Buddism to Hinduism. See the large number of reference to support this, in the article. i personally feel that in this sense Ayyavazhi deserves a place there in Vital articles and core article lists too. - white dot...!!! 17:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is in adding to a closed list - if you add one article you must remove one article to make room for it. Which religion article would you say is less important than Ayyavazhi? Jainism only has a few members today, but it has a very long history. Can you prove that Ayyavazhi is more important than Roman Catholicism (1.1 billion members) or even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (13 million members)? It's not even worth worrying about, it's really a technicality whether or not it's in that list. What matters IMHO is that it will be on all future DVD releases. Walkerma 20:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So if I understand your words correctly, the Ayyavazhi article will be in all the future DVD versions [which means not only in the succesive Version(s)0.7]. Ok Thanks for your kind information and co-operation. - white dot...!!! 12:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[2] Probably my bad while moving to {{chembox new}}. Sorry for the trouble. --Rifleman 82 16:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the chemboxes - that's a great help! Walkerma 20:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Martin, I will not be in France to the Wikipedia-Conference, so I will not hear your lesson there. About your german,: It is no problem not to speak german, but the Babelfish destroyed most of that you want to tell me (I really don't know what you want from me ;O( ), so I hope you can tell it in english again. Greetings from Berlin, -- Achim Raschka 20:55, 22. Sep. 2007 (CEST) (who speaks and writes a terrible english too) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.196.42.196 (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Martin,

thank you, now I understand. I think the main problem in the german WP 1.0 and WP:DVD is, that those are two total different projects. WP 1.0 was in the german Wikipedia a project to print the whole Wikipedia on Paper and to organize that fom A to Z with the wikipedians and a stuff of professional publishers in our publishing business. That project is dead, there never was more than the idea and some initial thoughts and discussions.

what really is interesting for your work is the Wikipedia-DVD we are producing every year since 2004. There is no editorial pre-selection of the articles we use for the DVD and there is no project to organize it. The DVD is a product of Directmedia Publishing and is produced without help neede from the community. So this is the process: We take all articles from a given complete Dump and make a technical selection in using different filters. For example we filter all articles with a request for deletion, all with licence-problems and many more templates. Than of every article we go back to a version one month before the dump was made and filter technical with a selfproduced Karmascheme on users (we used a selfmade whitelist until last year, now we have a Karmatool based on the articlework and articlechange of every author) to the version with a highleveled Karma in the article history. This version will be on the DVD with all templates indicating NPOV, source-problems and so on.

So, why don't we use the community? For the first CD-version parts of the comminty helped in cleaning up all that articles we used for the CD in an outsourced Wiki - that were about 150.000 I think. This was a lot of work and more and more we thought that the product was not really Wikipedia. So we thought about altenate ways and the technical way was the result we got. Now the authors in tghe german Wikipedia work on their projects and we can get an archive-version every year with better and more articles from version to version. This year we will produce two different versions of the DVD: one standard compressed on one DVD with very small pictures (because it's so much stuff) and one version with 5 DVD and pictures in a higher quality as a premium version. Parallel we will mirror our whole project on our new Website http://www.zeno.org, where we can link it with all other projects we publish as different historical encyclopedia, a great collection of german literature and philosophical writings and a collection of 40.000 master pieces of international art. The next version will be there in a few days, at least at 1st og October, where you can use it. The result on zeno.org will be the same as on DVD.

I hope this may help you, Greetings again from Berlin, -- 89.196.42.196 08:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

calling for tenders... can you take a look at the talk page for Roof and the above article and make comments/suggestions? Amandajm 16:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Martin,

Well, I've fixed the wording on the |v0.7=fail case. How do you think it sounds? Hopefully the wording is all right. However, the other two points are much harder to fix. The "This template was reviewed by WP:1.0" part is coded in a fixed part of the template; adding a switch to that would require a significant recode of the entire template, and I'd say it is beyond my abilities as a template hacker. I'd recommend to reword that boilerplate text instead.

As for the WPCD part, it can be fixed easily, but we would need to double-check all the WPCD-tagged articles and check whether they were in the old selection, or in the new one. (Are there cases where an article was in the old selection, but not in the new one? If that's the case, then things would get even more complicated!) If you'd like me to have a go at modifying the template, I can do that, but I don't know how to check all of the articles in the WPCD selection for the version in which they were originally released.

Hope that helps, and that everything is going well with you over there, Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)