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

Archive1 — Archive2 — Archive3 — Archive4 — Archive5 — Archive6 — Archive7 — Archive8 — Archive10

I've changed the template to allow the class parameter, just like {{hurricane}} does. As the Chemistry WikiProject has extensive lists, you may find them quite useful. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Martin :-) Emerging from a Wikimania-induced haze...

1. I'll get back to work on blessed revisions soon. We need something such as this badly.
2. Humanities has been COTW for a while now... Time for Toy, I think. But I'll let someone else make the change, perhaps this Sunday. How do you promote that?

+sj + 14:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I had set up a live table already. It is the table for WP Cyclones, and it is at the WPScience listing, all the way to the bottom. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on a perlscript to create these tables. (initially for use in WP:Beatles) I would be interested in feedback on it, it can be changed to do different things, more columns, less, etc. You can see a sample of what it creates at User:Lar/Sandbox2. The script itself would be released as GFDL. It uses the category SQL dump as input along with a list of categories. Any interest? I've tried stirring some but no luck so far. ++Lar: t/c 03:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tito for the (very prompt!) reply and link, I've started work. As for the perlscript table, Lar, that looks fantastic! Do you mind if I link to your test page from the worklist description page to alert people to it, or would you prefer to wait? I suspect the WP:1.0 project would be very interested, we have up to 700 WikiProjects to trawl though! You should take a look at the lengthy discussion we had a day or two ago. Also, take a look at the sample table I'm writing the old-fashioned way (the only way I know!). Thanks a lot to both of you. Walkerma 03:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please link to it! I've been stalled at a certain point for a couple of weeks now, and this would provide impetus to get moving again and meet the needs of the projects. A key thing they need to know to use this scheme is, what are the categories their project covers. I'll update the code as well so it's the same version as what produced the most recent sample table. ++Lar: t/c 03:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Now added, thanks! If the list becomes an official worklist of the Beatles project (they'd be crazy not to use it!), please let me know I'll also add it into the list of worklists below. Cheers, Walkerma 03:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Martin. I wrote a first rough script, with the result being at User:Mathbot/WP1.0. Wonder if you can comment at User talk:Mathbot/WP1.0. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I see the problem with the template. If you call class=Start, it recognizes the parameter, but if you use class=start, it doesn't. I'll go through and change all the bad calls. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Martin!

Im sorry to bother you. But since you have been involved in many chemistry related articles, your neutral stand is urgently needed in the Jabir ibn Hayyan article, regarding his ethnicity. Nearly all reliable sources say that he was an Arab. I listed all sources here: [1].

Thank you! jidan 00:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your wisdom with us ;). I actually had no problems with the Geber article, until this nationalistic user called ManiF, transported all his ethnic-crap to chemistry related articles that has nothing to do with his ethnicity [2]. Unfortunatly I was stupied enough to fall in his trap ;(. jidan 00:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A wiki user User:Inahet, had actually took the time to go the library, borrow the book E.J. Holmyard's Makers of Chemistry, and type the part important about Jabir's ethnic background. I have commented this. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Geber#A_test . jidan 17:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As I'm preparing to convert the WP:MILHIST worklist to the project banner version, I've come up with a few questions; I'm not quite sure where the best place to ask is, so I was hoping you knew the answer, or could direct me to someone who does.

1. Will Mathbot be using the categories (e.g. Category:FA-Class chemistry articles) or the template tags (e.g. {{chemstry|class=FA}}) to compile the worklists? In other words, does the parameter need to be named "class" for it to work?
2. Can it also fill in the article importance rating automatically, whether from a category or another parameter in the template? If so, is there a standard scale of importance ratings we can use?

Kirill Lokshin 19:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Will do. The work we've been doing is more basic groundwork—creating subpages and so forth—in any case. It's likely that we won't actually be in a position to start using the new assessment method for another week or two. Kirill Lokshin 01:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Martin, thank you! The barnstar was thoughtful. It made me feel good. It helps make all this feel more worthwhile. :) Maurreen 20:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

To link to images directly, you can add a colon before the image link. For example to link to the image when the United States article was deleted, you type [[:Image:US deleted.PNG]], which produces Image:US deleted.PNG. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wait... you mean using something like {{featured article}}, with the image as the link itself? I believe the appropriate way to do so is through {{click}}, but it is highly discouraged... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is a handicap, especially for pages like the Main Page. It is useful for editors to see the image description page, in case an image is vandalized, for easy access and reversion, but most newbies have no clue about that, and click on a link expecting to reach an article. I believe that the main issue with it is that the current implementation is an ugly hack in some browsers, so persuading Brion in Wikimania might be a good method.

As for going to Wikimania myself, I doubt it. I would have to fly/drive at least 5,000 miles, from Arizona to Harvard, and that is outside of the budget of an undergraduate aerospace engineering student... I'd like to give some kind of lecture/discussion/round table about 1.0, but alas, I wouldn't be able to be there. I could write a statement and give it to you for reading, but I'm not sure if I'll have the time to do so (I might).

Don't worry about it, I'm glad to help. :) Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You showed support for Toy 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.

Thanks, that's good news that the bot will get the evaluated articles. Maurreen 02:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm ahead of you. I already asked for someone to take it over a couple of days ago. :) Maurreen 02:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As the image is a derivative work of the copyrighted Wikipedia logo, we cannot claim it under the GFDL. I've changed the logo's licensing to reflect that it is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, after consulting with Anthere, one of the Board's members. Just to let you know. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you thought of that! Walkerma 05:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, now to respond to your question (as I was quite busy fixing the copyright thingie :P): Adding a new parameter would not change the table, nor it would affect the bot, but I'm not sure how the bot might be able to process it. Perhaps adding a status column would be better, but making sure it is manually updated, like with the comments. Also, there's the issue of page width. As you can see, the Cyclones table is very wide, and adding too much information will make a few things wrap to two rows, which will make it even longer. So, perhaps we need to add a small template, akin to {{FA}} (), to mark the status in the comments section? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You may also be interested in this thread in the Foundation's mailing list (foundation-l), as you know the technical/publication details much better than I do. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 19:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I hadn't seen at all your reply on my talk page... :P I didn't know that the articles would be categorized after passed / failed; that would certainly make it easier. Let me try a few things in the assessment templates to make things a bit narrower, and tell me what you think. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Walkerma,

Reading your message carefully this time...I think the idea of you going for a release in the autumn is a good one. Could you messenger or email because I'd like to talk through some of the details of what you have in mind for us to do off line? I think a much better shot at a children's release is quite a good idea and we have some other educational partners who might want in as well.

I am andrew AT my homepage which is catesfamily dot org dot uk. There is a simple spam challenge.

--BozMo talk 09:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

(copied from my userpage -- I'm not sure how these userpage communications are supposed to work. You have my permission to delete this without objection if I've put it here improperly).

Hi, I just wanted to explain that I reverted your change to Template:Grading scheme, because it would be quite a significant change in wording. We already have a couple of thousand articles assessed using this system, it would be a major change. Can you post your views on the template talk page? You could post it here as the topic has been mentioned before, though personally I agree with Titoxd's response. For an example of a short A-Class article that I wrote, see gold(III) chloride - is this what you had in mind? Wikipedia isn't limited by size of paper, that's why Jordanhill railway station was an FA candidate - I'd say if that topic can be considered for FA, almost anything can be! Cheers, Walkerma 21:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. As you can see, I have further reverted the change by Sj that prompted my initial change -- if we had to talk about it first, then that policy should apply to everyone, not just me. It appears that you are responding to an implication that FA status should not be available to short articles. I didn't mean to initiate such an implication. I have no problem with short articles having FA status or any other status befitting their quality. I intended my edits to reflect the reality so far as it exists, and to augment it within the new system. I would encourage you to reinstate my proposal, but with edits that conform to your understanding of what the differences would be between a short A-Class article, FA, GA, etc. To me, the difference would be that when an article suffers because it is short, it shouldn't get as far as GA (unless it's just a little short), whereas an article ought to be short should not be penalized for brevity in GA, AC and FA status. I bet we're in agreement on this -- if so, why not be bold and state it in the template in a way that makes you comfortable. Thesmothete 21:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've had a look at the wikicode for User:Walkerma/WP1.0 and all I could find was an erroneous div with no content and display: none;, and a background: none; style attribute on another div, both of which I removed to match the other sections. I couldn't find anything that could be affecting it. What is really weird is using the Developer toolbar in IE and opening up the DOM Inspector, it shows the Arts div as having the CSS property background-color: #ccccff;, but it just isn't displaying. I'll poke around a bit more but I doubt I'll be able to fix it, sorry. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 18:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay so it was easier than I thought, turns out an empty div before the Arts one with clear: both; fixes the problem. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 18:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Martin. I haven't been reading carefully enough or promtly enough the requests at User talk:Mathbot/WP1.0, so to come back to you, it is easy enough to read information from categories like Category:Version 0.5 science and add that info to appropriate subject pages in the WP1.0 project. As soon as you get the categories going, let me know and I will work on it. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

And I have a question at User_talk:Mathbot/WP1.0#Assessed version (approx) vs. current version of article. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been discussing some potential automation here with Oleg, and have come up against two main issues:

• Do we have a standard set of importance ratings? I noticed that the chemistry and mathematics articles use a four-level scheme, but there doesn't seem to be any page describing what the levels actually mean.
• Would there be a major problem with having the rating given in the tag (e.g. {{WPMILHIST|class=A|importance=High}}), with an associated category like Category:High-importance military history articles that Mathbot could use? I'm not sure if every project would need to go along with this, or if Mathbot could be set to only automatically compile ratings from those projects that use them.

If there's a better place to discuss this, incidentally, please let me know. I'm a bit lost among all the various talk pages that are devoted to various aspects of this rating process ;-) Kirill Lokshin 05:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

My bot would compile such data from wherever it can find them. So if some projects don't use ratings, my bot will just have blank field there. The true problem would be only if different projects implement ratings in different way. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, I've played with that page for a while now. Tell me how it looks on your browser, and tell me if you would mind moving that page to Wikipedia:Version 0.5. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine, thank you so much! As well as the formatting, I appreciate your removing the article listings. I was away much of the weekend, so I'm just catching up on a things. I am tweaking a couple of things (like removing the cyclists!) then moving it over. Do you like the pink/red colour, by the way? I wanted something different from 1.0, GA and FA, and the red seems to suggest to me it being a small test version (like red=stub in our assessments). But I'm not much of an artist! Thanks again, Walkerma 03:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. As for the pink/red color scheme, I don't mind; as long as it is consistent within the release, it's all right with me (and the stub=red idea is good too). The next step is getting reviewers to actually grade the articles and get this started. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for vouching for me in my unblocking request. I was unblocked that evening and I was able to make some useful edits. H Padleckas 19:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome - I don't expect it did much, but just wanted to help. Regards, Walkerma 19:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Legit, you fixed the table! w00t w00t. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:00, 15 May 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.

Dear Martin, Smokefoot and I (Dirk Beetstra) have been spending some time on electron counting and complex (chemistry). After working on electron counting for some time, I decided to move the 18-electron rule out of that article, creating a page which would be comparable to octet rule (on which I did some minor edits now). The category for 18-electron rule is clearly inorganic chemistry related (maybe some main group), but in which category would electron counting now fall? Could you have a look through these pages, and help me with the right categories (and maybe give some (hints for) more info that would fit here)? Thanks! Dirk Beetstra 20:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that should help somewhat. We're still discussing how we should assign the importance ratings within the project, so it might be some time before we can do any real work in that field. It would be nice if Mathbot could be set up to grab them from the talk page tags somehow, since editing our worklist directly is soon going to be a nightmare.

Overall, though, we're quite happy with the assessment tagging; we're about a fifth of the way through the articles that already have our project banner, at this point. Incidentally, I seem to recall you saying at one point that you wanted to have 10,000 articles rated by the end of the year? If that's the case, you might want to revise your estimate, since WP:MILHIST alone will provide you with more than that! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Walkerma. I am heavily involved with Russia-related articles and I believe I could help with both nomination and assesments of the articles. Also been in the real life a CFD-person working for simulation of plastic processes I could help with some CFD, Numerical Math and Plastic -related articles.

In my wiki-experience National portals like Portal-Russia, Portal:Ukraine, Poratal:Belarus, Portal:Poland, etc. works essentially as overblown Wikiprojects. I think we should contact people from there. abakharev 06:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Martin, could you have a look at Talk:18-Electron rule, Brichcja and I seem to get into a content-dispute. IMHO, 18 electron rule should talk about the fact that the metal in TM-compounds have room for 18 electrons, and that compounds deviating from that show, in general, more reactivity. Brichcja is convinced that 18 VE principly only applies to organometallic compounds (I fail to see the difference between organometallics and inorganics, from the metal point of view). I have stopped editing that page for now (I spend some time on the talk page, but will wait for some other opinions now), though I am not happy with a lot of the things that are now written on it. I have also asked Smokefoot for an opinion. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra 17:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the message. I definately think I will be most helpful with the Core Topics. I have tasked myself to copyedit all the core topics, as well as assess articles for V0.5. Let me know if there's anything else. Later, Chuck^(척뉴넘) 02:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

About the same thing: I had actually been thinking of nominating one article to jumpstart everything, so I agree. It's time to open the page. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey. I think that we should definately use #:'s to quickly address one or two things that are needed, that way it can stay up for nomination while the problem is taken care of. With the case of Tony Blair, there's the problem with the references, the fact that there is no description for most of the refs, just an accomanying external link. This can be easily taken care of. So yeah, I think (like was already done with the List of elements by name nomination) that we should do some explaining. I was thinking about this just before your message and, although it might require too much work, it might be good to require the consensus of two reviewers to pass or fail and article. Since you have to be on the list of reviewers to review an article for inclusion, maybe reviews should be assigned to the different reviewers. This would also take care of articles just sitting there. Just a thought. Thanks for the message, Chuck^(척뉴넘) 03:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have extra things going on with work, etc., lately, but I'll try to lend a hand. Also, I got your e-mail about the supplement, and it's very smart thinking of you. Maurreen 03:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, about the category, I don't have strong feelings either way. It can be renamed by a bot if necessary, so that's not really a problem, for now.

As for Mathbot: I'm not entirely sure how it would work... the easiest way would be to add an assessment parameter to {{v0.5}} (which would cause Mathbot to automatically pick it up), and just make sure that it matches the WikiProject assessment, if necessary. Having an automatic process for this might be harder. As to add pages automatically to WP:V0.5, I'm not 100% on the idea... we want to make sure that every article that is on the category is actually approved, so the Wikipedia:Version 0.5 page could serve as the "human checklist", so to speak. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, as the tracking would start when we approve the article, we can add the class parameter to the "approved" template ({{v0.5}}), and just not add an Unassessed category to not mess up the results. (If we decide later that we need such a category, we may always force all pages that include the template to change automatically by editing the template, thanks to the job queue.) Having functionality like the GAAuto script would be nice, though.

As for generating trees, I've never entirely understood the tree interface myself, so that would be something for you and Oleg to discuss. However, the easiest way to obtain the data is through the template, as I said above. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Having noticed that you added the classification to it of "stub", I wonder what you think about how this article fits. It used to be classified as a disambiguation page that referred to the respective chemical element, chemical compound, atom, etc., but now it has been suggested to transform it into a top-level summary of a chemical substance in general. However, because of that, I don't see how it could ever become anything more than a stub. - Centrx 21:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of what would be in it other than overviews of information already in other articles. General information about reactions? General safe handling? General information about chemistry, bonding..? - Centrx 06:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed the intro, and upgraded the rather nerdy description of the term 'chemical substance' to a more mondaine one .. isn't everything a chemical substance? What I mean is, the man in the street reads newspapers, and when a truck with ethanol has had an accident, the press describes the compound suddenly as a chemical substance. I think this page could be used to tell what a chemical substance is, I would even suggest to make some general compound point back to this page, if reasonably possible. No stub mark, not necessary, though it could use some more down-to-earth examples. But indeed, keep the page small and comprehensive. --Dirk Beetstra 07:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have copied this discussion to Talk:Chemical substance and interpolated it with that found on User talk:Centrx#Chemical substance. - Centrx 23:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I would like to join this team. I'm fourth year medical student in Hungary. I'm admin in hungarian wikipedia, wikiquote and wikibooks. I work in medical, biological related articles (have some FAs) in hun wiki and I maintain here the medical portal. I'm ready to help and take part in this wonderful project. What I ask from you is your opinion about joining and it would be very kind from you if you'd explain to me in brief how will start this work, where can I help. Thanks, regards, NCurse 17:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the long answer. Good to hear about your trip to Hungary. :) I wanted to work on medicine, biology and all of my nominated articles. My question (hope the last ones :) ):

• I'd like to join review group. It needs just a word or someone have to approve me, have to vote about me?

No, we're just glad to have your help! See the answer to the last question to understand why we're keeping it simple. Having the team of reviewers completely open also means that we can't be accused of elitism, which would cause a lot of bad feeling. Walkerma

• As far as I can see things now, you don't have a core topics coordinator and a geography coordinator. Don't you need scientific coordinator?

Right now most of the active folks are wearing about ten hats already - so I would be very happy to have you in charge of the science reviewing, other than ones you nominated yourself (I see it was you who added medicine and biology!).

• At least how many articles will be published on the CD?

A lot depends on how popular it is to nominate & review, I planned on a minimum of about 1000, and I don't expect more than about 10,000, but 2-3000 is most likely. Having said that, it's had a good start, so 5000 may be possible.

• Who will make the last decisions about articles? Review group? What if hundreds of editors will want to gen into that group?

Yes, the review group. I think there will be a hard core of dedicated people who will probably be final arbiters. We'll worry about too many people later on, right now we need reviewers badly!

• And why do we need a version 0.5?

Your earlier questions in effect give the answer. There are several I can think of quickly:

• • V0.5 is in effect a test bed for all sorts of systems, some of which are quite new to Wikipedia. We can make some mistakes, and people will realise that it's only a test release, then we can find what works and apply it to 1.0. That includes the open review panel - the process for "passing" at WP:V1.0N is planned to be much more stringent, so anything we miss here should get caught at the 1.0 stage.
  • We can get a sense of the likely size of releases - right now everything is largely unknown.
  • We will build up a team of reviewers with experience, and who know each other, hopefully many of this team will go on to help with the 1.0 release.
  • We will build up a body of articles that will be automatically nominated for 1.0., to get 1.0 off to a flying start.

You make a fantastic job! Good to see that some of you how can coordinate this wonderful job. I will help in any way needed. :) NCurse 20:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! We really appreciate your help. Are you willing to look after the science reviews for us? Cheers, Walkerma 01:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now I can see things much clearer. Of course, I'd like to look after the science reviews. It's honour for me. :) Now I will read the nominated scientific articles, check their quality then continue nominations. But I thought that hundreds would want to be part of the review team. Maybe later more editor will join. Good work! :) NCurse 10:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to have so many questions but I want to do possibly perfect job. If I move an article from 0.5 nominations to V0.5 then that article should have

• no mistakes
• just GFDL licenced images?
• no cleanup, POV templates.

Do I see it well? And What about other templates which help you to find similar articles? NCurse _work 10:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt if any article is perfect ("no mistakes") but "no significant mistakes" may be a better way to put it. For core topics and countries of the world, where we are aiming for complete coverage, we will tolerate articles that are incomplete or organised less well (B-Class), as long as there are no cleanup or POV problems. Regarding copyright, I've been sloppy with this for V0.5, but we should probably record in our comments section of our table if there are "fair use" images. We allow "fair use" even in FAs, so they are everywhere, but we will have to be more careful for a CD release. I was assuming that part of the preparation for release would be to examine image copyright tags for all articles, and eliminate any we can't use. Thanks again for helping out, hopefully the review team will continue to grow. Walkerma 15:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

While browsing among wikiprojects and nominate articles a question was raised in me:

• I examined others scientific nominations and moved the proper articles into V0.5. And I nominated dozens of articles and plan to continue. If there will be nobody in the scientific section (as it seems now) who will move my nominations into V0.5, can I take the responsibility that I can decide whether an article can get into V0.5 or I have to wait for someone else to decide over my nominations. It is just about scientific related articles. I hope it was understandable. :) Anyway I try to always do proper job and I've always dealt with science. So I feel, I can move my nominations well. And if needed I assume obligations for that. What do you think about that? NCurse _work 10:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should be strict in not allowing the same person to nominate and review, because we want to get two opinions. Sometimes one person can miss some important problem in the article, but a second person will often find the problem. I am a PhD organic chemist with some college physics, I think I can be review your nominations if they begin to build up (though you may have to wait I am off to a conference for much of this week, in fact to talk about wikis!). Most of the articles for this CD are not at the specialist level, fortunately.

By the way, would you mind if I posted this discussion an FAQ page for other reviewers to look at? I suspect that many of your questions could be typical of new reviewers (thought really, we're all new at this!), so these postings could be very helpful for others to read. I can fix any English errors if you want. Walkerma 03:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

As you wish. Ok, I'll wait for somebody else. Until then I continue to nominate articles. What if somebody removes my nomination saying failed by quality, etc.? We should talk about it on the article's talk page? NCurse _work 10:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Walkerma

Merci pour votre sympathique message. Je suis fort heureux que vous ayez utilisé l'image Antoing JPG04.jpg. Bonne continuation sur WIKIPIDIA !

Jean-Pol Grandmont

Hey, I made a layout for my idea of reviewing at User:Chcknwnm/Sandbox. If you think it's appropriate it should probably go to Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations/Reviews. Anyway, let me know what you think, and feel free to say that it will cause too much extra work or isn't appropriate for this project...just looking for feedback. I'll send this message to all the current reviewers to get their imput. Later, Chuck^(척뉴넘) 06:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Kirill Lokshin said the same thing about reviewers reviewing what they know. I think the 0.5 nominations though are going to increase in scope as this thing gets going, and there are going to be lots of articles that no one knows very well, but may still be important. Because of that, I thought the assigning would come into play, to make sure that each article does indeed get reviewed and not just ignored, or even worse, get a pass or fail just to get rid of it. Which is what the two reviewers would be for...to make certain that an article is indeed reviewed in a true and unbiased manner. I realize this is only 0.5, but if we don't get this one too right, they might not even let us go to 1.0 (NOOOOOOO!!!!)(unlikely, but just worth a mention). These of course are just my opinions, so we'll wait I guess to get the opinions of everyone else. If worst comes to worst, the idea can chill in my sandbox and look good :) . Later, Chuck^(척뉴넘) 06:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)