Archives

Archive 1: 2006–April 25, 2008 Archive 2: April 25, 2008–Jan. 3, 2009 Archive 3: Jan. 4, 2008–June 12, 2009

• I will respond to your comments on my talk page unless you request otherwise.

Thanks for your GA review of Bill Bradley. I think 90% of what you noted is stuff I would like to have changed but I was hoping someone else would have come along while I was working on it. I also wondered about the two images (a thing I should know more about) and I thought they were unsuitable...I guess I was right. There are one or two things I might disagree on but we can discuss that later if need be. I'll be working on it this weekend; thanks again for the review. I'll get back to you.  Frank  |  talk  19:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably need several more days on this article; do you see any problem with leaving it open for GA through the weekend?  Frank  |  talk  16:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. :) So long as you are working on it I will leave it open. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And, it looks like I've managed to get most of the items done. The lede may well generate more comments; that's a bunch of "new" content, so I'll continue watching the talk page for any additional comments you may have.  Frank  |  talk  18:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've compiled a list of pages by using the pages in the categories in this list, and removing anything you had edited in the last 5000 edits. I've also found 797 articles in "unassessed" that are using stub templates. Want I should tag 'em? –xeno^talk 00:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great.! Would you mind if I edited your list to remove a few categories first? I made a note at the project, and a couple users are working away at the unassessed articles with me. We have about a third of them went through now. I keep bumping into other things to do so it is taking me a bit longer than I intended. AWB certainly is speeding things up though!

I found a bug, maybe, in the kingbot pluggin. It is not putting in the photo needed parameter when I am telling it to. Not really a big deal though. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, edit the list to your heart's content. That's why I put it in projectspace.

I don't even see where needs-photo is available in the plugin? I thought you needed a custom thing for that? –xeno^talk 00:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you are in assessment mode, and you are assessing a page, it gives you a pop up box where you enter the quality and importance rating, it also gives you a spot to mark for maintenance too, like "needs attention" and "needs infobox". Well all the maintenance parameters work, except "needs photo". I made the removal of a few categories. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be something in wrong with our banner syntax too. I have noticed that the parameter for needs image varies among some projects. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, you could always add an alias for the parameter. Can you give me an example of a page where you put it but it's not working?

I'm almost done tagging the net-new pages. Based on your comments and a review of your AWB work, it looks like you guys are already combing the "unassessed" category and doing stuff over-and-above just tagging as "stub", so would you prefer I left it? Or should I go ahead with auto-tagging as stub the 797 articles I identified? –xeno^talk 14:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to go ahead and tag the stub articles. They will eventually get manually reviewed at some point. But just for the sake having a temporary measure in place until they are reviewed manually, it would be worth it in my opinion.

Again in regards to the image paremeter. I just assessed Hondorus, Indiana. For the class options I choose stub, for the importance\priority, I choose low. Under settings where you can also mark for maintenance, I checked needs infobox and photo requested, but no no photo requested paramenter was added. Again, its not really a big deal. For the most part there are about four of us who ever go out and take pictures, and we buzz each other if we have requests. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plugin isn't co-operating me right now for manual assess to see what you're talking about... Anyhow unfortunately the person who created it doesn't really maintain it anymore nor do the AWB devs that often... Gotta find a pioneering VB programmer who can pimp it out for us. I'll get to those assessments. –xeno^talk 15:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am ok with VB, but I don't have compiler for it. I am pretty good with Pascal and Delphi though, I use them daily. I have never really looked at the wiki api though. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft provides a free compiler I think. You should check out the code for the kingbot plugin and see if you can fix it up. See also all the suggestions I left at WT:Plugin++ =).

Please see also: Wikipedia talk:INDIANA#Territorial expansionism by Indiana Wikiproject??. –xeno^talk 15:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing new & improved Mk V auto-assessement. Are you interested in giving it a shot?

There was also a suggestion to clean up the unknown importance; do you think you could break up WP:WikiProject Indiana/Categories into a default lowest importance (low/med/high) ? (Leaving anything that's too complicated in an "do not tag" at the bottom)

Let me know on both counts. –xeno^talk 02:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I should be able to give that a shot tommorrow using the new pluggin. For default importance on cats, I should probably try to get input from the rest of the project on that. I will do that tommorrow too. But tht shouldn't be too hard. Most cats would all be low importance. My French in-laws re visiting today. :) 13:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)~

Sure, take your time. Xenobot just completed a task for WikiProject Chicago. See here for an idea of the edits it was making. I can make it more strict, i.e., only tag if two other projects agree. Let me know.

I can also send you the settings file if you want to try it. –xeno^talk 20:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI someone from WP:CHI has put together a list for default-importance, but they're holding off letting the bot loose on it. You might want to take a look for any insight: User:Pknkly/TempWork01. –xeno^talk 16:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So I organized the categories based on our current assessment heirachy. Don't use it just yet though, I am buzzing our more active members to take a look to make sure they don't want to tweak it or have a problem with it altogether. Here it is Wikipedia:WikiProject Indiana/Categories —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, task running now, please do let me know if you notice any issues. User:Xenobot/A shows how the bot is presently making a decision on class. –xeno^talk 01:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI your template is not current supporting "class=current". –xeno^talk 05:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the copyright status for images owned/taken by the Government of Indiana? I think you've dealt with some images like this, but is there anything in writing on IN.gov? Specifically, I want to know what to use for the licensing for the map images here. Although provided by the Star, they say the source is the Secretary of State's office. Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 21:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends techinically on whether or not the image is "part of the public records" of the state. You can check out Indiana Code 5-13-4 for the law dealing with public works. In a nutshell, the state of Indiana holds copyright on all works produced by the government. However, any work which is part of the public records, which would include images like the state seal, or official districting maps, are all clearly public records and there is no problem in using them. The state waives all its rights in controlling image and can only force you to stop using the work by writing you a letter and providing adequate explanation as to why you cannot use it (which is basically that they have to prove that your use of the image harms the public or government in some way). The grey area is in what is public records. The law says that any work created by "Any board, commission, department, division, bureau, committee, agency, office, instrumentality, or authority, by whatever name designated, exercising any part of the executive, administrative, judicial, or legislative power of the state" is a public record. It also is more detailed and says ""Public record" means any writing, paper, report, study, map, photograph, book, card, tape recording, or other material that is created, received, retained, maintained, or filed by or with a public agency and which is generated on paper, paper substitutes, photographic media, chemically based media, magnetic or machine readable media, electronically stored data, or any other material, regardless of form or characteristics." So by a broad interpretation, pretty well anything created by the state is free to use, although they own it and can ask you stop if there is a good reason. And "In the case of electronically stored data, [the public is allowed] to manually transcribe and make notes, abstracts, or memoranda or to duplicate the data onto a disk, tape, drum, or any other medium of electronic storage." If you read over the law, there is a pretty fair range of exceptions. Certain boards and agencies, and the use of some logos are limited, as well as certain criminal records.

The template used on a number of Indiana images is the {{pd-because|reason}} When I have used it, I just put "because the copyright for the work is held by the state of Indiana, its duplication is permitted without limitation by the Indiana Code 5-14-3, and the state has waived all restrictions on use of the work." —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I hope to add those maps to the relevant articles this weekend, then. And thanks for working with Xeno on article importance tagging. That should be useful in organizing priorities. Reywas92^Talk 03:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! anytime :) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charles Edward.

You seemed in favour of coloured links for stubs. May I ask you to express your opinion in the newly created poll? (Please reread the proposal, many of the deatails have changed.) GeometryGirl (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On September 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paul Dresser, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 06:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was the one that deleted the image. It had a clearly incorrect tag: PD-USGov. I've restored it. Nyttend (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. As a part of going through the NRHP county lists, I always check communities to see if they have pictures of the buildings that are NRHP-listed, and I figured that I might as well throw away some of the garbage :-) Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about it, and I really don't think Xenobot needs to make 2700 edits tagging Indiana article talk pages for importance. I mean, that's only there for us, the WPIN contributors, right? Well, since we've got Wikipedia:WikiProject Indiana/Popular pages, that's completely unnecessary. Truly, article importance isn't based on its category topic, but its readership. The articles listed on Popular pages are the Top 500 most important Indiana articles, and what we should base what articles we improve on that. Perhaps we could instead add a link to the list on the banner. Tagging 2700 articles for importance when very few editors use them and there's a more accurate alternative doesn't make sense to me. I hope that other Wikiprojects will also learn of the Popular pages feature. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 22:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that depends on how you are defining 'importance'. While it is certainly "important" (dic-def) to have your most popular pages improved as much as possible, popular pages does not always translate into "importance" (WP-def). History of Indiana, for example, is not one of your popular pages. But I don't think anyone would deny that it is of top importance to your project.

Of course, I should probably just keep quiet as if you decide to do away with importance, it'll be less work for lil' ole me =) –xeno^talk 23:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course History of Indiana is top importance even though it doesn't get as many hits, but the system's not perfect. In theory we should rank every article based on what seems most integral to Indiana, but in practice we should cater to our readers by concentrating the most-read articles. I would rather work on articles more likely to be read than those with more perceived importance (but still those I'm interested in of course!). No offense if I'm slamming the purpose of your bot, and never mind if it saves you work, but I don't see the point in tagging every article. Besides, I think most higher-importance articles are already tagged, but those not tagged would be marked as unimportant anyway. Happy editing, Reywas92^Talk 00:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't worry, I don't take offense at all. This is totally up to you guys, I just figured I could lend some insight, as we've had a similar discussion at WP:VG. –xeno^talk 00:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you for the most part Reywas92. Focusing on developing our most read articles should be a priority and popular pages if definatly out best tool for that. And I think for the most part, out present importance ratings are pretty well right on. My understanding of the importance rating though is that it is more intended for WP:Wikipedia 1.0, where project's like ours are not necessarily determining what is important to the project, but what rather is important to the overall encyclopedia. By putting top importance on something, we are saying, "this definatly must be in any official release of Wikipedia, or the encyclopedia is not complete". The 1.0 bot picks the articles using our ratings. Although I was not around way back then, I believe the entire wiki project assessment system was created\redesigned for that purpose, although it has morphed somewhat since then. I am gradually going through all the unassessed articles still, so eventually I will get to manually assessing them eventually. We can leave the importance assessments out for now then and Xeno some work! He is a busy beaver with lots of other good stuff to do I imagine. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sweat it, I can do the importance gig as planned if you still want me to. Xenobot will be there for most of the articles anyway inheriting classes. –xeno^talk 01:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I am doing the GA Review for Marshall. Any questions; feel free to ask. --Roisterer (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to do a review. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been well over 30 days since you requested to be reviewed, I've gone ahead and archived your request as part of my effort to cleanup Editor Review. You may view your review here. Thanks & happy editing. If you have any questions, please message me on my talk page. =D Netalarmtalk 23:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your wonderful peer review of the article! I can't thank you enough! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor asked for an extension on the hold to improve the article, but I can't see that anything significant has been done, so I'll just go ahead and delist it. Lampman (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the review on Texas Oil Boom. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]