User talk:Walkerma/Archive25

Active discussions

This archive covers up to the end of Aug 2010. Topics include Wikimania, chemistry article validation/CheMoBot, Version 0.7 and Version 0.8 including indexing, Okawix, Book-Class/Wikibooks. For other talk page archives see User talk:Walkerma/Archives. Other close archives include: Archive10Archive11Archive12Archive13Archive14Archive15Archive16Archive17Archive18Archive19Archive20Archive21Archive22Archive23Archive24Archive26Archive27Archive28Archive29

Are you so busy?

I'm see about the new Version 0.7 - which stated should FINALLY be published soon... When the exact date it published? Is there anything that I can help? Ivan Akira (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear from you. Actually, this is the one point where I can sit back and let others do the work! The publisher is currently converting the file over to their format, recompiling a keyword set for searches, and integrating the content with the reader software. They told me should have a release ready today, but I haven't heard anything yet. They assured me it would be ready for Wikimania, which starts on Wednesday. I would see this as a beta version, but we will very quickly move to publish this; since Version 0.7 is a test version anyway, it's understood that it won't be perfect.
Regarding help, it would be GREAT if you could help us with Version 0.8, which will probably start immediately after 0.7, though we will need to tag the 0.7 articles first. Can you let me know if you have template, bot or scriptwriting skills? (I can't do any of those!) Even if you're just a simple editor like me, there are various things you could help with, such as helping the assessment system, contacting WikiProjects or 1.0 editors, helping in brainstorming sessions, checking over lists of possible vandalism, things out new scripts, etc. Please let me know where your interests lie. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I just added a diagram showing the process, see here. Walkerma (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Nah... maybe I'm just stay as a simple Wikipedia editor... I'm prefer to check the article for vandalism or expands it or fixes it. I'm also looking forward to make a template or bot, but sadly I'm can't do it. I'm just don't know how to do those on wikipedia. Anywho, I'm looking forward to download version 0.7 if it possible. And I'm willing to help for version 0.8, please let me know the detail about the future version which can I help. Ivan Akira (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I can't do the fancy stuff either - but much of the work can be pretty basic. I'll know more after I get back from Wikimania - I'll keep you posted. Walkerma (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'm looking forward to it! Ivan Akira (talk) 04:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion and poll on reviewer usergroup criteria

You may be interested in a discussion and poll I've started to decide the criteria that will be used for promoting users to the reviewer group at Wikipedia talk:Reviewers#New discussion and poll: reviewer criteria - please put your comments there. AndrewRT(Talk) 17:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I'd like to. I'm at Wikimania right now, and internet is very limited for me, but I'll jump right in when I get back on Sunday. I'll try before then if able. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

post-Wikimania

Hi Martin,

It was great to meet you at Wikimania, I hope we can meet at future events too. I wrote a bit about your session. Let me know when you publish your slides anywhere. And it occurred to me: if you ever want to send me guest posts, I would be delighted to publish them :)

cheers, pfctdayelise (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

index

I had contacted Emmanuel earlier this month, to ask for an updated list of any errors in the index, which I will try to fix. I believe he was on vacation until very recently, though. This week, I'm traveling until Wednesday. I will contact Emmanuel when I get back, to see if we can move forward. I will also respond to the WP 1.0 bot issue when I return. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Emmanuel sent me a list of broken links in the index; I will see about removing them from the index pages. It occurred to me you might be trying to contact me by email at my previous email address. I am in the process of closing that account; please use cbm.wikipedia at gmail.com for Wikipedia-related correspondence. Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I was using your old email address! Thank you also for fixing the index - that's been a headache for a while now. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 06:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Next indexing run - full list

Hi Martin. I have finished my first run of the compounds in drug and chemboxes, we now have about a third of the boxes in the index, and those should have correct CASNo's:

Now the next step.

I have rewritten the parsing, it is now creating off-wiki files for me, one containing a list of <pagename> vs <CASNo> which you can use to send to CAS (those you can find in my userspace on wikichem.org; list1 and list2), I will update them regularly).

The other part is here on wiki: User:Beetstra/listing1 - User:Beetstra/listing21 (for a full list, see User:Beetstra/Validation). Those are files of 500 pages each, with a lot of data where the bot tries to check CASNo's, or tries to find the CASNo's using other searches on commonchemistry. I will update those pages as they come available (number 1 should almost be ready; when there are ~21 then also the lists on wikichem will be complete).

Those files are .. problematic, there are some good ones, but most of them really need significant attention to see what we have to do with them. I think that many will not be available on commonchemistry. Can you coordinate how to work through these files? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

PediaPress

Hi Martin... it's been a while!

Well, I'd love to, but I happen to have class right at that time (ah, grad school...). But what would be the framework? Essentially the same as generating books and saving them on a user page, for them to be later generated by their software? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Okawix license status

Hi Martin. A recent edit by you about the license and source code status of Okawix[1] was pointed out to me. Apparently you think that Okawix does not have a free license. Please be aware that it *does* have a free license (GPL)[2]. The source code is also freely available[3]. A company supporting it and providing added services is just great, I think. We also support the localisation of the Okawiki application at translatewiki.net. I have some idea where the FUD came from, and I regret that you have been misinformed. Cheers! Siebrand (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this information, I've tried to make amends/corrections for my mistake wherever I can. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Might want to point people towards the client that runs the file for beta testing as well. (Found it anyways, playing with it now)... JoeSmack Talk 07:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Initial impressions: How do I load the file from the app? I ended up dragging the corpus file over the app to get rolling. Loading time for the file was substantial (it's a big file, I know). Just icons as an interface makes it a little hard to get oriented. No menu bar at all? My second query was boyishly the term 'poop', which gave no results for 'feces' (closest was 'buttocks'). I guess that article didn't make the 0.7 cut, school kids using this around the world are going to be disappointed. Clicking on cite-footnotes sometimes leads to the ref section, sometimes not. The history only tracks search query history and not clicking-around history as I might expect. Images/infoboxes/etc all look pretty sweet. Over all much better than the 0.5 offline reader thus far. I'll put more eyeballs on this thing tomorrow, for now I sleep. Night! (if this feedback belongs somewhere else feel free to move it). JoeSmack Talk 07:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Does the client try to install a Firefox addon called 'Linkiwix'? I received a warning when trying to start up my browser after installing it...similar name... JoeSmack Talk 05:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't get anything like that on my PC, but I'll ask about that. I'll send the feedback to Linterweb. I'm away at a conference at the moment (hence my sporadic replies) but I'll be getting home tomorrow night. Thanks A LOT for these really helpful comments! Walkerma (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Beta test of Version 0.7?

Oh thanks Martin... I'm looking forward to download it. Don't worry, I'm using broadband connection. I will test the 0.7 right after I download it! I will report if there are any bug too. Thanks to prompt me, I really appreciate it. Oh yeah, I'm looking forward to the preparation for 0.8 too... Ivan Akira (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Progress on validation

Hi Martin. ChemSpiderMan sent me a list with ChemSpiderIDs, and I am running a script on that now. The lists that I made (under User:Beetstra/Validation) were with the new system becoming too big, so I split them further. There will now be about 42 files, each with sections of 50 compounds. That should make it a bit easier to handle. The script is now running, I will be updating the first one this evening, and then go to bed. Will upload some more files tomorrow.

These are all unverified pages (so, they don't have a revid in the index yet). Some are pretty easy, others need some work. I would suggest that you do them section-by-section. When I do a next run the ones that have been indexed will be removed from my files, and when I upload the files they will also be removed from the lists.

I will see what I can do about the ChemSpiderIDs of the pages for which we already verified the CASNo. The uploaded pages now give the correct one ChemSpiderID, so if you encounter them it is certainly worth it to add them to the pages.

I'll leave it up to you to coordinate how to handle these files. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


Speedy deletion of Template:Chembox simple inorganic

A tag has been placed on Template:Chembox simple inorganic requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. RL0919 (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments subpages (Village pump discussion)

I was following a discussion at one of the village pumps about the comments subpages used by some articles, and having a vague memory that WP:WP 1.0 started them, I went looking for the old discussions that started them and found these: 1, 2, 3 (May to July 2006). You were one of the five main participants at those discussions, so I'm notifying all five of you so that some input from when this all started can be obtained for the current discussion, as I'm not sure the full picture is being presented there so far. I'll leave a note at the Village Pump discussion saying who I notified. I also left a note at the WP:WP 1.0 talk page, but not sure how much you each follow that page now, hence the user talk page note. Carcharoth (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

New ZIM file by User:Kelson...

Martin, sorry to disturb you, but you said that Kelson is making the new ZIM file, where is the location of that file? Does it also reside at this URL? Ivan Akira (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It will eventually, but it will take a few days - Kelson has to finish making it, and then Linterweb have to download it and process it after that. It used to be all done on one server, but alas no more! Walkerma (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Book-Class

As mentioned in the IRC session, I've created the book-class (which is almost fully implement on the technical side) for project banners. See Wikipedia talk:Books/Hadronic Matter for an example, as well as Category:Book-Class articles. I'm letting you know so WP1.0 can adapt and update documentation accordingly (I already updated some of it, although probably not all of it). Should I post this on the WP1.0 talk page as well? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, can you post the information at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index also, along with some background. User:CBM can bear that in mind as he works on the "second generation" 1.0 bot next month. Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Signpost article

Following the creation of the new Book-Class, I wrote this to be featured in an upcoming Signpost edition. Feedback is welcome. Also where would be the place to post this for the 1.0 team? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This looks very nice! I don't have any suggestions on how to change it - it's very clear and concise, which is what they will like at the Signpost. Thanks for doing this - I think it's a great step forward, and will really promote the book idea among WikiProjects, and such books designed by WikiProjects will usually (IMHO) be more effectively compiled than those by individuals.
As regards the 1.0 team, if it's OK with you and other members of the book project I'd like to add your project to our list of active projects. I will also add a section in the main template. That doesn't mean that people from the 1.0 team will try to boss you around; such a listing simply indicates that you're part of the loose conglomeration of people working on offline projects. In other words, we're a federation of projects, not a hierarchy. I'll post a comment on the project talk pages too. Walkerma (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't recall hearing of that list, but perhaps I'm just confused by what exactly you mean by "main template". Anyway, go right ahead. WP1.0 never tried to boss around anyone in the ~2 years I've been here, so I doubt that'll happen anytime soon. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Upon reflection on your Signpost piece, a couple of questions occur to me, that a WikiProject may ask:
  • How would a WikiProject go about designing & producing its own book?
  • How would this affect our current assessment scheme? Could we have an article rated as (say) both B-Class and Book-Class?
I think you probably need a page somewhere that explains exactly how the new system will work. You could add a link from your Signpost article, from the project page, as well as from Category:Book-Class_articles itself. You will need to explain, for example, the banner doesn't appear on the regular article talk page. Probably the best thing is to show
  1. The process for putting a book collection together using the Book-Class
  2. The process for a project to tag & monitor an existing book
  3. Answers to expected FAQs
When we set up the 1.0 bot we wrote this set of instructions; that may give you some ideas. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Good suggestions. I'll prepare some mini-guides. The idea we talked about in the IRC was to use book-class on the individual WikiProjects banner, but actually through the WikiPedia-Books banner. I don't know if this is viable, or even desirable at the moment since I wouldn't have any idea on how to describe what B-class or start-Class means for a book. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

More about the signpost :)

Hi, I'm including both the article above and the tidbit about the article milestone here, for this week's issue. Do you have any more background that could be added -- for instance, do you happen to know when this style of assessment began? Or just a quick background about the 1.0 project's assessment work would be great. Feel free to edit the article directly, or let me know. thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I made a small change - please can you check that it's OK? We may also have some other 1.0 news in the next day or two, I'll keep you posted if anything else surfaces before it "goes to press". Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Fixes to 0.7?

Hi Martin,

What is the release status of version 0.7? Did you see the issues I reported about wdb2.okawix on the Editorial Team discussion page?

RickJP (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I missed seeing your comments because of work & Christmas! Thanks for recording those bugs - I've replied to you there. As for a release date, I asked Linterweb again about that via email, and I'll post something on the 1.0 page once he's fixed the date. I think because it's now quite an old collection they're less enthusiastic about it, but hopefully it'll be out soon. Meanwhile, there are lots of exciting developments happening behind the scenes that should make Version 0.8 a LOT better and faster to turn around. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks; looking forward to 0.8. RickJP (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
We're tentatively saying February 1st, but I'll let you know when it's fixed. Fabien was fixing Iraq today. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Lots of fixing needed there. Wizzy 07:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes - we're trying to get someone to work on the indexing, as there are known bugs in the code that wrote it, and it also needs some manual input for tweaking it. Walkerma (talk) 08:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Importance ratings for non-article classes

If you have a moment, I'd appreciate any thoughts you have about Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#Importance_ratings_for_non-article_classes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, Martin. Thanks for welcoming me back! Glad you've kept up the work on the release versions.

I'm also busy in real life and just doing a little piddly stuff here. I moved this summer to Albuquerque.

Take care, Maurreen (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 18:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

0.7 status

Someone pointed out that Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team refers to releasing 0.7 in 2009. I know that we have released electronic versions, but I don't know about physical media. Could you update that section whenever you have a chance? I'm sure other people are interested as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

We just had a question about this on the reference desk: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#wikipedia on disc. The wikipedia:Version 0.7 page is shockingly unclear on how to actually attain the CD: could you please explain (either here, or on the reference desk, or preferably on the Version 0.7 page) how to actually buy the disk? Buddy431 (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm essentially on wikibreak right now, but I'll send an email to Linterweb. The problem is that they didn't do a formal release - there was a bug in the Mac version, and they never confirmed it as fixed. It can be downloaded. I'll reply. Walkerma (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)repl
Thank you, that was very helpful. Buddy431 (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Software for creating Cd from wiki

Just thought of notifying about this software which was used for Malayalam wikipedia version 1.0 : http://wiki.github.com/santhoshtr/wiki2cd/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santhosh.thottingal (talkcontribs) 13:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'm basically on wikibreak - hence the slow reply - but this is good to see. I went to add links on places like Meta and I see you've beaten me to it! Let me know if you're going to Gdansk, I plan to be there, it would be good to meet you. Walkerma (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

West.andrew.g

You may not have noticed that the above editor has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sodium sulfate solubility-graph data

Hiya martin!

What's the origin of the data graphed in File:Na2SO4 solubility.png? The image is used in Sodium sulfate#Physical and chemical properties, which has an in-text cite for solubility characteristics, but could you clarify the source for the graph itself? DMacks (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi DMacks - good to hear from you! I created the graph in Excel, simply by plotting the data from the source given. I thought I'd added the source into the image description, but apparently not - now done. I always thought that solubility curve was interesting, that's one reason I worked on that article. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token b3a1d410187d065fd3e96359c8b70151

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Time to archive page

Is it time to archive this page? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Walkerma/Archive25".