User talk:Walkerma/Archive19

Active discussions

This archive covers up to the end of January 2008. For other talk page archives see User talk:Walkerma/Archives. Other close archives include:



Hey, I noticed you do assessments for articles in the Chemicals Wikiproject, and I was wondering whether you could assess this one article, Copper(II) hydroxide. I haven't been able to find anywhere to post a request for assessment. Could you help me out? Thanks, --Slartibartfast (1992) 22:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to get to this, sorry I've been so busy. I wanted to actually help you work on the article a bit, too. Walkerma 07:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. I'm not actually the main collaborator for that article, but I've had my share of discussions there... --Slarti (1992) 23:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Still wanting that assessment if you ever get the time... --Slartibartfast1992 21:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, man. I might get around to goind the stuff you listed in the weekend (yes, I have noticed that Chris edits once in a while). Anywho, thanks for the assessment and pointing that stuff out. Do you think that if we add those sections this would be a Good Article? --Slartibartfast1992 03:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll slowly improve it when I get time on weekends. Thanks for your time, --Slartibartfast1992 22:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WP 0.7 Canadian provinces


I noticed that in August, you gave all of the Canadian province articles a pass into WP 0.7, according to their articles' talk pages. I think this is great; however, I do not see them anywhere on the 0.7 release version list. Is this on purpose, or just an oversight? Green451 18:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I got very busy and never added the provinces to the list - I've done it now. Fortunately, we check the tags against the list so we'd have caught it, but it's better to catch the problems right away. Thanks, Walkerma 05:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Content review workshop

Walkerma, would you be interested in participating in a workshop on improving the content review processes on Wikipedia? There's a new project page at Wikipedia:Content review/workshop, which has been set up as a place to discuss FA, GA, PR, WikiProjects such as Military History, the League of Copyeditors, Wikipedia 1.0, and any other content review processes. These don't all work smoothly all the time, as I'm sure you know. We have some participants who have experience at FA and GA, and would like to get involvement from someone with knowledge of Wikipedia 1.0, too; your name was suggested by another editor as someone very familiar with Wikipedia 1.0. Would you have time to join the discussion? The project page summarizes the goals and scope of the workshop; there are some discussions on the talk page that you might find informative -- towards the end of the talk page participation expands somewhat and in the last few sections is some discussion of how we'd like to proceed. If you can find the time, we'd be glad to see you join that discussion. Mike Christie (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me quoting you about this... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Not at all! Thanks for letting me know, Walkerma 07:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot

See User:VeblenBot/version1.0/Demotable for what I have right now. Where is the right place to discuss the way the score is calculated? — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


Hello, i have received your message. What I'm most interested in- well, I have knwoledge in history, geography, and language related articles, realted to Ukraine, as well as World history during World War I and II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mona23653 (talkcontribs) 13:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Belarusian article assessment

Due to the lack of projects that cover these articles, I have decided to create the Wikipedia:WikiProject Belarus. Anything that is in Category:Belarus is going to be covered by this WikiProject. I have created at template at {{WikiProject Belarus}} so articles can be assessed. I just need a bot to stick them all in articles in the category I mentioned above. Can this be done? I just hate it when good articles from this country could miss out a DVD appearance because of some project not wishing to rate them sufficiently. Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've requested help on this, as I don't really know how to do this myself. In the meantime, could you perhaps put together a set nomination covering perhaps the top 20 Belarus articles? The ones we have included so far (that I know of) are:

Cheers, Walkerma 02:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

National emblem of Belarus and Constitution of Belarus is the other Belarusian articles that are listed as Featured. If you need articles on living people, the article on Alexander Lukashenko is a "Good Article." User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, these are useful suggestions. They don't have to be GA/A/FA to qualify, though that definitely helps - a B will qualify if it's on an important topic. Something like Hrodna would definitely be a candidate, though that article is only a good Start (or perhaps a weak B?) and it could certainly benefit from having some references. (See this analysis on cities.) Thanks, Walkerma 03:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem

I'm just trying to clear the list of stale proposals, Cheers. --Kevin Murray 02:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hierarchy subpage

I'm not yet sure how the subpage will work, but I'd like to keep the changes log relatively clean, so I refactored your comments. I hope that is okay. Geometry guy 13:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Template Help


I was working on {{WikiProject Southern California}} to try and do two things: 1) make the template list all Southern California articles automatically under the category of WikiProject California, and 2) go back and remove the redundant template for {{WikiProject California}}.

Before I can do the second, I need to finish the first. Currently, before the {{WikiProject Southern California}} template will jointly list something, the value "California" needs to be set to "yes." I am not a programmer, but I would like to get the template rewritten so it just places the articles in both wikiprojects. Can you help?

Thanks. --evrik (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • which version of the template would you suggest? --evrik (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

hi hows it going

With the release version? Still interested in combining 1.0 with 2008 DVD Selection? We are getting quite a bit of demand for the 2007 Selection now but it takes 6 months to build up.. --BozMo talk 21:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I was just writing an email to you when I saw this come in! The short answer here is YES, definitely! We should probably talk some time soon - but I'm going away to my in-laws for Thanksgiving tomorrow morning. Walkerma (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


Hey Martin

Spoke to PC62 and he said you could tell me about the ChemSketch collaboration. I was dragging my feet about sending my agreement to the license terms. It's been a while and I thought it had fizzled out, but apparently it's still working. I'm still keen on participating. Let me know more? Thanks! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(Copying over to my talk page, my reply there --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

CFATS article

Hi, Martin. I saw your entry over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law#CFATS_article. I don't know this area of law in particular, but I did tweak a couple things (corrected some terminology, added a fact or two, added a couple references) to try to help it along a bit. Good luck, and thanks for starting the article. --TJRC (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

New straw poll at the content review workshop

Walkerma, I just wanted to update you on the current situation with the content review workshop, which you contributed to for a while. We have a proposal for automation of peer review, and it seems Gimmetrow is going to try to find time to write the bot code for that. Once he has something to show people we'll post more notifications so people can see what they think of the idea.

Since it will be some time before Gimmetrow gets to that, we're currently running another straw poll to identify the next topic, and I thought that you might be interested in participating in that, even if you decide not to get involved with the subsequent topic discussion. Please drop by to take a look if you have the time; the section is here. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

wp on dvd site

Can you tell me who runs the site? It has issues... I was attempting to buy a couple DVD's for Xmas presents, but alas, the site crashes when you try to pay! (It's fine up until that point). Cheers, -- phoebe/(talk) 06:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I will try again. -- phoebe/(talk) 19:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


in your edit summary for the talk page of syphilis you mention that one section needs cleanup, but you don't mention what section it is. If you mention it on the talk page, it might get worked on. - Nunh-huh 03:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia 1.0 Project

Since you are a member of the WP 1.0 editorial team, perhaps you can answer a question for me. Currently, the top third of the Talk:Johnny Cash page is filled with information about WP 1.0. Is it supposed to look like that? My understanding was that there was a simple template at the top of the page, along with other wikiproject templates, stating that the article had been chosen to be part of WP 1.0. As it is now, you have to scroll down through all of that "stuff" to get to the table of contents. Is there a way of limiting the amount of such information that appears on the page? Thanks for your time. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this! Apparently, you were getting the main project talk page (WP:1.0) transcluded onto the page, instead of the template {{WP:1.0}}. I've never seen that happen before - I'm sorry it happened! It was just one colon that made all the difference! Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed a similar situation yesterday, while doing some assessments, with most of the articles in Category:Unassessed-Class Irish Republicanism-related articles but did not know how to fix it even though the tag looks correct to me. Maybe you can look at that one. TIA Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You are certainly welcome, and I apologize for the lateness of my reply. I had no idea what had gone wrong, I only knew that something was definitely amiss! Thanks for your response, and for attending to the problem. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 05:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


Martin, given this blog post I'm sure you'd be the most qualified person to expand remikiren (and the whole page renin inhibitor). JFW | T@lk 16:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but that's another walkerma! Sorry, my name appears to be too common. I actually know very little about renin and that sort of thing. I'm planning on spending my January looking at some organic functional groups - much more up my alley. Have a great holiday! Walkerma (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Had me fooled. I thought that was you too! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead(II) nitrate, back to FA?

Hi, Martin, I've copy-edited the lead(II) nitrate article from the Chemicals wikiproject, after it was recentely demoted from its FA-status. In this, you did not contribute to the voting process. Would you please be so kind as to now provide feedback in its now running FA re-candidacy? Wim van Dorst (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I was away & offline for virtually all of last week, and busy before that - I wasn't even aware of this article losing FA status until I saw discussion on it today. I'll take a look tonight - when I'm not dancing the night away....! All the best for 2008, Walkerma (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Dance away, Martin. It's ten in the evening here, and we're going to open the champagne for a pre-drink. Good wishes for 2008! Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter

Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Philatelic assessment

Actually I had prepared the following page but as it is not quite finished, I had not linked it yet. If you want to finish it we can link it properly. There needs to be some importance guidelines added, other than that I think it is about finished. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's great! I just dashed off something "quick & dirty" - but I hoped that in time we would have something like this new page. Once you think it's ready we can update the project page as you see fit. Delete all of what I added if you think that's best! The links to categories are often overlooked, especially the importance one, but these can be handy. By the way, do you know why the log entries appear in the ToC for that new page? They don't link to anything, but they fill up the ToC. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually I just added it but it still has an "underconstruction" tag and, as I said above, need some importance guidelines. Maybe I will get to that over the weekend and ask you to review. I intended putting in a table something like one of these tables that we added to the Project Ireland assessment page so we could have four, (or more or less) different group examples with ratings for guidance. ww2censor (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes - the Irish example is excellent, one of the best I've seen. It's always best if people can see an example for importance. FYI, we'll be testing out a bot-based assessment scheme (based on three independent parameters) for WP1.0 in the next few days, I'll let you know how it works out for the philately articles. Walkerma (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Strangness with today's statistics: the stats produced here seem quite at odds with the assessments I made within the last few weeks. Perhaps you could give it the once over. When I view the unassessed articles there are 518, yet the stats say 411 and I know that I assessed several of the lists of birds on stamps as you can see from the log entry for February 14, yet these same articles still appear as on the unassessed listing today. I checked this within minutes of the bot updating the statistics page, so I don't understand what is happening. Any advise would be appreciated. And after I assess some more, the number of unassessed stays the same, leaving the just assessed articles still listed as unassessed but this only seems to affect lists class articles as it works fine for others, so there is something amiss with the way the list-class articles are not being recorded. I will ask someone else to have a look too. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand what's going on. List-Class was until fairly recently a non-standard tag used by some projects, but it was not recognised by the bot. We agreed a few weeks back to add make List-Class official policy. Oleg had to have a changeover point when he "switched on" the new code, and I guess that our project saw that happen today. If you look, right after the original stats were done, the bot did another edit to add another line to the table and to fix the stats. Hopefully the change is now complete and the stats will match up correctly (they now look right to me). If there is a persistent problem, please let me know and I'll alert Oleg. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
As I know you are not online all the time, I asked BHG to look at it (she helped with the WikiProject Ireland assessment template) and she did some work on it and it looks like it has now been fixed. So let's hope so. BTW, it was BHG who ran the bot manually to get the new stats. Thank and cheers. ww2censor (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


  Thanks for your support
Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I have started a bit of a workshop on {{chembox new}} here, may I invite you to help discuss the different parts of the box? Thanks. --(Beetstra)

Thanks a lot for this, great idea! I'm fairly busy, getting ready for the start of teaching on Monday, but I'll try and participate. Walkerma (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Selection bot

Your list was very helpful. I am defusing an emergency with the peer review page right now, and then I have a date with my wife later tonight. But I was able to make spreadsheets with the data from the projects you gave me, and they are done. All I need to do is to combine them into a master spreadsheet and add the spreadsheet code to do the calculations. I'm planning to work on it tomorrow. If you know how to program spreadsheets, I can just send you the raw data spreadsheets. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I sent the email. If you have any problems let me knwo and I can convert the formats. In order to convert back to a wiki table, it will be easiest to save the spreadsheet as a CSV (comma separated) file, and then I can write a script to turn that into a table. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Great to hear. Here are the column meanings: A - title. B- project. C- quality. D - importance, or "Unused" if the project doesn't have importance categories. E- incoming links from non-redirect articles (I believe; need to triple-check that with Emmanuel). F - interwiki links. G - hitcount statistic. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I think those stats from Henrik are different than the stats being used here. These are the ones Leon collects, and are based on a 1 in 1000 sample of pages being viewed. So a page with 880 views could easily show 0 in the stats being used here. I am not sure how Henrik is gathering hit counts, but switching to them shouldn't be hard if he is willing to release the data. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I ran into Henrik on IRC today. He says he can make us a table of his data for all articles in a few days. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The current tests are generated by my bot VeblenBot, but they don't really need a bot at all. Mostly they just download data. I have registered SelectionBot in case we need a dedicated username to do the heavy work.
The data I sent you is cut off at a threshold of 27 on the multiplicative scoring system, with unused-importance counting worth 6. Emmanuel has data for all articles, although Leon's hitcount data is coarse. I can very easily run the script with the threshold set lower, but the data sets will be quite large. For example, with the threshold set to 10, there are about 80,000 articles in the output. — Carl (CBM · talk) 06:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting input

Your input on the ideas presented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject reform#Single Banner? would be very much appreciated. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Phosphorus trichloride.PNG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Phosphorus trichloride.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


No need to apologize; any time you can spare would be great, but I completely understand about having a lot else on your plate. One thing that you might be able to help with is a recommendation, though. Take a look at this post; we were thinking that we might be able to help an interested project get experience on taking an article to FA. The Countries project doesn't seem interested though, so I was wondering if you happened to know of a project with active editors that might be interested in such an idea. If you do, drop me a note -- we're going to give the Countries project another day or so and then try posting somewhere else.

Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Walkerma/Archive19".