User talk:Walkerma/Archive11

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

Archive1 — Archive2 — Archive3 — Archive4 — Archive5 — Archive6 — Archive7 — Archive8 — Archive10 — Archive11 — Archive12 — Archive13 — Archive14 — Archive15 — Archive16 — Archive17 — Archive18 — Archive19

This is the July 2006 archive of Martin Walker's talk page.

Discussion

Static content

Dear Martin, see my recent post on titoxd's talk page... we should identify places to coordinate for the greatest impact in the short term. I hope all's ewll, and that your computer has not suffered any more down time; and send regards from the frigid north, +sj + 15:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

FAC: I'd like your feedback, if not support

Hi Martin, I currently have the article Baden-Powell House on WP:FAC. I know it has nothing to do with chemistry, but knowing your high-quality view on wikipedia articles, I would appreciate your feedback on the comments page. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC).

See reply on your talk page. Walkerma 23:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Perfect touch-up. Thanks very much. I hope this'll bring the scale to the positive side. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC).

Re: Thanks

Thank you for your kind words! I see no reason why we couldn't have 100,000 tagged articles by fall; my main suggestion here would be to focus, at least initially, on projects that are actively tagging to begin with, rather than spending a significant amount of time trying to prod dead projects back to activity. An updated version of the list of templates by usage would help significantly in this, as it would then be trivial to determine which projects have already tagged a significant number of articles, and would thus be ripe targets for inclusion in the bot tables; but even looking at the old listing, for example, immediately highlights Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey, which already has ~5000 articles tagged. A fairly trivial modification to their template and some category creation would thus give a greater immediate benefit—at least in terms of articles under the bot's purview—than messages to any number of inactive projects (or even those that, while active, simply don't have the manpower for the massive tagging this requires).

As far as 0.5 is concerned, I'll try to do some more work on that; I've been quite busy with WP:MILHIST things recently, so I haven't really had a chance to do much. I wonder if it might not be appropriate, should we need more articles, to simply import large portions of the WP:FA listing? We might not get the most balanced coverage of important topics, but there would at least be enough well-written articles to give a test release some substance. Kirill Lokshin 01:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

wiki1.0

thanks for the welcome! Uh, i'm a bit confused as to how I can help out the assesment process; is it just a review by one editor quick (for 0.5) or a big process? Do I just judge an article's quality and accuracy? -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 02:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Judaism

Brave of you passing Judaism. I reckoned it was so far from NPOV as to be untenable, and hard to save on section deletes. Personally I have problems with statements like "The 20th century animosity of Muslim leaders towards Zionism, the political movement of Jewish self-determination, has led to a renewed interest in the relationship between Judaism and Islam" ... --BozMo talk 08:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I know only a little of history too, and always see it from a Western bias but there are a whole serious of problems with this statement (and others) including such delicacies and whether animosity is religious or political (Muslim leaders or Arab leaders?) and whether animosity is toward "Jewish self-determination" per sae (is that really what most people mean by Zionism?) or whether it is to do with the fact that in our wisdom we created Israel forcefully in the middle of Arab lands where Palestinians had been living for thousands of years rather than say by annexing New England out of the USA (where there were more Jews living after all, and the indigenous population had been wiped out a matter of a century ago, so no one else had a strong claim) and letting the Jewish people self-determine there. WP in general has a very American history slant and I tend to avoid articles like this one where it comes out so strongly; as with many areas of conflict in the world we are not entirely on the right side of history. Casting it as though the origin of the problem was religious hatred for self-determination is not accurate or fair. However I could not disagree with the importance of the topic. --BozMo talk 08:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

1.0 Team

Hey sorry,

I'm the idiot that was wondering how to use the bot. I have tried and failed miserably, as I can't understand the instructions. It would be great if you could set something up for the bot to run over Category:Adelaide. Sorry if this is a hassle. Jasrocks ^(talk) 06:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've just made this like you said. I don't quite get what to do next. At the moment, Talk:Adelaide doesnt list through to the categories. How do I do this? Jasrocks ^(talk) 22:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

1.0 Question

Where can I help most? My interests are more general in nature, although I do have some areas in which I have a reasonable level of expertise. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Bhumibol Adulyadej

Hi. I see your work on Wiki and you do great article improvement (FA, V0.5, GA, etc). I was wondering if you could give the Bhumibol Adulyadej article a look over as I plan to work it to FA. I spent most of yesterday fixing the messed up ref section. I'd especially appreciate you input on whether the image tags are sufficient for a FAC round. Will the on section with a current event tag be a problem? Any other input would be appreciated. Rlevse 12:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Whenever you get to it is fine. As for V0.5, I thought I'd get blown off, but I'm obviously not the only one who has complained and there is obviously something wrong with the current system or there wouldn't be all that talk. Also, I never asked for the Eagle Scout article be included, my complaint was with the flaws in the system. I've been debating what to say in that thread next. Oh, and the Scouting article is rated B-class right now and the Baden Powell article GA. Rlevse 18:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

V0.5 proposal

Here's what I think would work for your V0.5 project and meet most concerns people brought up:

1. Articles already selected: water under the bridge, leave them there
2. Article must be nominated-even if they are "automatically included", it is not the job of reviewers to go looking for articles
3. Stub and Start articles are not eligible under any circumstances, if the editor wants them included, he/she must beef them up
4. B-class are only eligible if they are on a Core Topic and in such a case are automatically included
5. FA, A-class, GA articles are automatically included if they have been rated as TOP or HIGH by a WikiProject OR are on a Core Topic
6. remaining FA, A-class, GA articles must be voted on by at least 3 reviewers and at least 2 must vote for inclusion and rated 1-5 by each reviewer, 5 being very important (like George Washington) and 1 being very minor (like Spoo). A score of 2.1 must be attained for inclusion. Nominations in this cat should be left on the nom page for at least 10 days
7. nominators should note if they feel an article is in an "auto included" category

Rlevse 20:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Yrs, I think we'll end up with a system something like this. I'm going to try and put everyone's ideas together into a workable solution over the next couple of days. Walkerma 04:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes complaining does good-;). Rlevse 21:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

GA template

See Wikipedia:Deletion_review for 8 July. Rlevse 12:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Topic priorities for release versions

Hi, Martin. I had an idea about article topic priorities that might build on Silence's idea and the four-level scale already in use.

The flaw with the current scale is that it designates importance only within a given Wikiproject, or maybe other topic areas.

Besides that, I think it would be good for the overall project to use a larger set of numbers to designate the priorities, and a scale that is somewhat less relative than Silence's idea. By that I mean that each priority level would correspond to a set of some defined number. Here are a couple of examples.

One option is based on powers of 10.

• Priority level 1 -- The 10 most important items.
• Level 2 -- The 11th to 100th most important items.
• 3 -- The 101st to 1000th most important items, and so on.

Another option is based on doubling.

• Priority set 100 -- The 100 most important items.
• Set 200 -- The 101st to 200th most important items.
• 400 -- The 201st to 400th most important items, and so on.

Defining the size of the sets in each level would be more clear than otherwise. For example, you and I might agree that "Foobar" ranks as between the 500th and 100th most important topic. But without defining the size of the set, you might assign it a Level 1 priority and I might assign it a Level 3.

These could be set up by continuing in the same vein as the core topics or with categories or both. Categories could allow subcategories, such as "the art articles within level x."

The system could also still be used to complement other current functions, such as core topics lists and the current scale of importance within wikiprojects. And it could be used as a guide (not mandatory) for 0.5 or a later version.

Further, one way to lessen the potential for conflict within this system could be that we might want to no discourage people from moving an item more than one level at a time. Maurreen 14:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I also put a similar note at the main team talk page. Maurreen 15:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, glad you like the idea. Hope your trip or whatever was good.

Silence's idea is here. Maurreen 17:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this is that non-experts are deciding how important something are. This is I think that with articles rated by a project, the subject-matter experts, that rating should be a main factor. Rlevse 17:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with THAT is how to rank vastly different articles - for example, which is more important, a biography of an Australian TV/pop star or an American scouting standard? The most objective answer is likely to come from someone who is familiar with both, but not strongly interested in either (i.e., impartial). That impartial reviewer (if such a person exists!) can consider the relative rankings of each article within a project, and of the project itself. If we can achieve a consensus of close-to-impartial opinions - which Maurreen is proposing, I think - then we can get close to what we need.

Even within the same general area, something rated "Top" by a very specialized project like this, might only get a rating of "high" or "mid" from a general Biology WikiProject. Or take a look at the two (very different, but appropriate) rankings on this example. In short, we need someone to turn the relative rankings within a project into absolute rankings - a very challenging task, I think you'd agree! I think Maurreen's approach is the only fair one in the long term, because it allows us to slowly evolve a consensus in the same way as WP:VA or WP:CORE are starting to do. This is ultimately the only fair way to compare the relative importance of an Aussie pop star with an American scouting standard.

By the way, my "trip" was simply to relocate to Boston for the summer, I teach summer school organic chemistry at Brandeis University most summers. Walkerma 17:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there are two immediate problems with this idea. The first, and most obvious, is that it will require a separate ranking for every article that may be entirely different from the ones assigned by the WikiProjects. This would require enormous effort for even a moderately-sized set of articles, and will be (as the current 0.5 system is) very vulnerable to systemic bias on the part of the (presumably limited) number of people assigning these secondary rankings.

The second, and potentially greater, problem is that creating a quantifiable numeric ranking is among the few ideas absolutely guaranteed to cause a firestorm of resentment, because it will force relative rankings within any sufficiently large class of articles. This may not be as apparent, perhaps, to someone like yourself, who works primarily in the hard sciences; while there might be different opinions over whether sulfuric acid or hydrochloric acid is more important, neither choice is likely to cause much resentment. But consider applying the same logic when questions of pride are at stake. Is Uganda or France more important? How about Islam versus Judaism? Or Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin? You're asking for conflicts of quite epic proportions here. Kirill Lokshin 17:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

In other words, few if any people will be happy. Rlevse 17:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

As ever, Kirill, your comments are right on the money. If things like scouting and Hong Kong action cinema evoke such passions, consider religion and politics...! It would certainly be a lot of work. Using the project definitions as a guide would drastically reduce it, but not eliminate the work. How then can we reach a consensus, without upsetting people - or should we just not bother? I still think my old idea of a subject tree (more nicely formatted) might be the least controversial way of doing this. Then we simply have level 1, level 2, level 3, etc (like in Maurreen's system) in each subject area, with the projects organising their own part (branches?) of the overall tree. Walkerma 17:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think one option (I can't recall if I've proposed this before) would be to avoid having pre-defined release sizes. In other words, rather than starting out with the idea of picking exactly X,000 articles for a release and then forcing the WikiProjects into that metric, grab sets of articles (consisting of intersections between a set of importance ratings and a set of quality ratings) from various WikiProjects, with progressively lower standards until we reach the desired release size. In other words, start by taking all Top-Importance articles that are at least B-Class in quality; suppose we have ~2,000 of those. If we want to release ~10,000 articles, start accepting batches of various projects' High-Importance articles until we get close to that number.

It may be helpful, depending on the numbers involved, to create some sort of informal division of WikiProjects to represent the order in which they would be asked for additional sets of articles. This may be mildly controversial, but I think that a very simple scheme of asking higher-level projects (e.g. Biology) before lower-level ones (e.g. Banksia) would be generally accepted even by the smaller projects.

The concern that this will lead to "trivial" projects getting their articles into the release is not a particularly valid one, in my opinion. The smaller projects are unlikely to produce any substantial number of articles in the higher grades; and, in any case, I see little to be gained by purposely excluding them. So long as more "important" topics are adequately represented, is it really that big a problem if we have also included some more eclectic ones? One of Wikipedia's chief strengths is its breadth; I don't see the need to sweep that under the rug here. Kirill Lokshin 18:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This is very similar to the method I mentioned a few days ago. The only problem is articles that are not covered/rated by a WikiProject.Rlevse 18:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it's a bit too early to estimate how much of a concern that will be, since most WikiProjects aren't even aware of the bot yet. Even then, the most important articles will be covered by something like the core topics list, and we can even run an ad-hoc process to add (but not remove) extra articles if there are some significant areas where no projects are active. But I would expect that the overwhelming majority of useful topics will be adequately covered by a WikiProject; the key is informing them all of how to use the bot. Kirill Lokshin 19:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they don't need to use the bot. Through Work via WikiProjects (which worked with Oleg to set up the use of the bot) we are still offering projects a "manual" way of uploading this information. In some cases a small project may want to list only a few articles without bothering with the bot - but this information is still very valuable when put together with the rest. See this example. Walkerma 19:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; replace "bot" with "some sort of worklist" in my comments above. (Although my experience suggests that even very small projects will happily use the bot over compiling a manual worklist.) Kirill Lokshin 19:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant to say, hopefully soon we at WVWP can set up our own use of the bot, for compiling all of these fragmented data into a cohesive body of information. As we discussed, though, quality will be easy to compile (I hope to set it up this week) the absolute importance is much harder. My guess would be that about half of the responsive groups adopt the bot, and about half of them prefer just a simple short list. Walkerma 19:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

On hold

Hi Martin, I want to share why my participation has been on hold. I have a bit been unsure how to frame this until the last week. First, my research plan in Wikipedia has changed three times in the last few months due to discussions with my committee. It seems that I have a plan now. As it turns out, I will be researching an aspect of WP in which I was not involved. Second, a cautious advisor suggested I needed to hold off participation until I get my institution's IRB approval. That seemed prudent. This proposal stage may wrap up in next month or two. I will be unsure about using the Vir account (soon) until the proposal stage is over. Btw, I will probably attend Wikimania and I will look you up there. So, take care and I hope to chat with you sometime, Vir 16:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, Thanks for your comments. That is a lot of assessed articles! Yes, I will try to make it to one or both of the sessions you mention. Look forward to meeting you then, Vir 01:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm going to participate in "bits" via a new ID. This ID is going to sleep (on hold) for a good while. See you on the other ID and at Wikimania. :) Vir 17:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Bob Dylan

The references are there. They're in the section formerly called Further Reading.

Blue Stone - with a capitalised S

Hi Martin You were the most recent contributor to Blue stone so you seem a good place to start. There is a re-direct on Blue Stone that takes readers to Blue stone something completely different. If you go to Yellow Sun which I edited recently you'll see that someone has later added a link to Blue Stone which is then re-directed.

It was then and still is, subject to time constraints, my intention to generate a short descriptive piece on ENIs (Electronic Neutron Generators) as part of a more general update of UK nuclear history. Blue Stone was a codename used to describe several design generations of these devices that replaced the crude short-lifespan impact generators used on early nuclear weapons, eg. Fat Man. And its the only name used now for these ENI devices other than alpha-numeric jumbles.

I'd like to get the re-direct removed but I'm not sufficiently Wikified yet and want to proceed cautiously.

Some source material for Blue Stone can be seen at http://www.mcis.soton.ac.uk/Site_Files/pdf/nuclear_history/glossary.pdf Regards Brian.Burnell 14:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Project FBI

Well.. I really worked on template using some of the ideas of the WPBeatles project. {{Project FBI}}. Looks very rad now... still working on a neat feature which I can't share yet, but I will keep you informed so you can see it's "Wonder" ;-) Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 22:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Importance

Meh, sorry about breaking your nice four-level scale, but it was the only way we could get consensus to go ahead with the ratings at all. (Unfortunately, a lot of projects have been copying our assessment page to start their own, without considering whether the three-level scale—or the fairly liberal interpretation of each level—is really suited for narrower and more homogenous topics. I'm not really sure what can be done about that.)

Incidentally, you might want to keep an eye on the new "Biography" ratings that are being introduced. It's a very broad and varied area—even more so than military history—and I suspect that if they start doing importance ratings in earnest, there will be a huge mess of complaints as a result. Kirill Lokshin 22:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Timing

Still on for Oct to give me a list of articles to run? Still aiming at 5000? Does the nomination process include a check on whether the images used have decent copyright by the way? Also please don't forget the "bad paragraph" list although I notice some bots have been cleaning up inconsistent headings so with a little prompting this might be automatable. --BozMo talk 06:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Libya

Please feel free to evaluate the Libya article which has become a 'Featured Article Candidate' and write you support or opposition on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Hopefully Libya will become only the second African country to be featured on Wikipedia. Thanks --User:Jaw101ie 12:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Category

Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) was selected for V0.5, here, but it was put in a military awards category. Can another cat, perhaps "Other awards" be made or it moved to a more appropriate category? Thanks. Rlevse 23:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest creating a section that would include things like scouting in general (community-based organisations sort-of-idea), so that all the scouting articles (I know you want lots of them in 0.5!) will all be listed together. Any suggestions? Walkerma 23:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

How about under Sociology, you make a subcat called "Youth organizations" or something similar?--reword the title of the subcat "Social phenomena, movements and subcultures"? We working on improving many articles right now, and yes, the V1.0 bot is a factor-;) We have another FA, but even I think it's a bit obscure for 0.5--History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America). I personally want to make our Top article, Scouting an FA (GA now) as it's the grandaddy overview of the movement and our project. Rlevse 00:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: do you have suggestions on Scouting, ie is it A-class now, or what it needs to be A-class? Thanks.Rlevse 00:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't see I really good place right now. I want to reorganise the whole page anyway back to our ten-category system we originally used, I find the current system hard to follow. Then it would go into "Culture and society" (as scouting does at WP:GA), I'd create a separate section for Youth Organizations. Or should we do it for community organisations? We need a place for things like the Lions Clubs International too, scouting fits better there than alongside "Same-sex marriage in Canada" (see GA). In the meantime I'll create a Civilian awards section as a home for the Eagle scout article now - is that OK? Regarding assessments, Wim is a veteran assessor (> 1 year) and a scouting expert, I'd ask him! Walkerma 00:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say "Community organizations" with "Youth organizations" as a subcat, all under "Culture and Society". Wim and I work together a lot. He's busy with his FAC right now, Baden-Powell House. Rlevse 00:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

GA standards

Could you look at the GA talk on International Space Station and European Space Agency? The guy insists on arguing with me about my hold status. Look at them as of the day I put the hold on. He mainly complains about my expecting good, consistent referencing. Am I being unreasonable here? Rlevse 20:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the person here is either ignorant of the exact point you are making or too idle to fix it. I guess it may be the latter, since the response seems to say, "Make me," but that may just be bravado. Some people seem to regard references in articles as a nuisance imposed by fussy people at WP:GA and the like. I would suggest fixing a few of the refs yourself, then say, "Fix the rest like this (give a wikilink to your edit) and it should be able to pass." Then wait and see. Walkerma 01:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see my response to him dated 19 July 2006 at International Space Station (which is in better shape than the other one. I didn't go into details because I don't want a pissing contest. Rlevse 02:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Very nicely done! Walkerma 02:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Jewellery

Thanks; I'm working (slowly) in bringing this up to FA; you;re quite correct on the lack of attention to anything but diamonds in materials - will get onto that .Bridesmill 04:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Review team

If it's okay with you, I've signed myself back up for the 0.5,1.0,etc review team at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Review_Team. Rlevse 15:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Libya

Hi,

I've recently added Libya to the list of featured article candidates. Overall the candidature is going well with many of the objections now sorted out. The final concrete objection is with the article's prose. I have been the main contributor to the article and have been looking at it for the previous 9 - 10 months. My eyes no longer see it freshly, so I am not a suitable copy-editor!

To meet the final demand of copy editing, I have been advised to ask different people to edit parts of the article.

I would really love to get this article featured as you can probably see from the page's history! I've worked very hard on it and I see this as possibly being the final hurdle.

You can see the prose objections, mostly raised by Sandy, on the candidature page. If you have the time, please choose a section (Politics, Religion, Culture etc.) and copyedit, perfect, ace it! I would be very grateful with any help I can get.

Thanks a lot,

--Jaw101ie 16:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I will try to look at this in the next few days, but I have a backlog of such requests, I'm afraid! I'm going to try some copyediting tonight, but since I'm giving an organic chemistry exam tomorrow morning at 9am this will only be a temporary distraction for me! Thanks for working on such an important article like this, I wish we had more countries as FAs. Walkerma 02:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Aleksandr Vasilevsky

Thanks! :-) Kirill Lokshin 04:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

0.5 cats

Sometimes it's really hard to find an appropriate category to put an article in on the 0.5 page after they're selected. Nothing seemed to fit FA Swastika, so I put it in social phenomena. There've been several other cases. Just FYI. Rlevse 21:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Core topics COTF -- Biotech

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.

Maurreen 09:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I've put the template {{to do}} on the talk page of Biotechnology article. Would you suggest any other changes to the article talk page? --Victor 15:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - now we just need to fill out the to-do list! I do plan to actively participate on this when I get a chance. Thanks, too, Maurreen for updating the COTF. Cheers, Walkerma 17:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

0.5's FA review

Hello, Martin. I've tried to assess most of the articles in the Geology, geophysics, and meteorology section of the page, yet I feel I cannot assess the rest of the tropical cyclone articles, as I've been a significant editor to those. Would you mind having a look at those for me? Thanks. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look when I get some time - busy right now with summer school students! Walkerma 17:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Core topics

Thanks! I'm glad you like it. Maurreen 06:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

WPCD progress

Well, the WPCD category has 3800 articles in it so far including (automatically) all GA, and all 0.5 agreed articles. I am still planning on 5000 articles for a Oct/Nov edition but it looks like it may be that bit longer before we converge with 0.5... I was hopeful we could do this together. Dividing it into ten categories is a very good idea but I need to think on how to do this. I have had a look an encarta etc. and a lot of the value is in the navigation stuff etc. i.e. the added value over and above the encyclopedia info. There is a broad spectrum between highest quality and highest practicality of course. Hmm. --BozMo talk 10:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Core COTF

Martin, thanks for taking care of that while I was away. Maurreen 16:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! Thanks for looking after it now you're back! I just wish I had the time to do more copyediting and article-writing so I could help more - but with biotech being so close to my field I do plan to add some stuff to that. Heck, I'm even in Boston now, biotech city! Cheers, Walkerma 16:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography

Just wanted to let you know I'm trying to resurrect this project. Let me know what we can do to help with the project. I've added the importance scale to our Project Banner... plange 07:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Need your support

As a member of the Project Philately I would like to make you aware of a discussion about the Category:Philatelists that some of us have recently come to a consensus about. The discussion is here, but essentially a decision was made to try and remove all the subcategories that grouped the philatelists into country categories even though there are only just over 20 pages referenced and some of the subcategories had a few as 1 listing. Besides which, I would never go looking for a philatelist based on a country of origin, even if I knew it, I would look at the category for his/her name. Anyway, this is up for discussion now at a CfD, categories for deletion, page and I would appreciate if you would weigh in on the matter having first looked at the original discussion. I am sure you will see the benefit and logic of getting rid of these redundant subcategories and vote a Support for this. By way of reference, one of these subcategories was up for deletion a short time ago and basically all the non-philately people won the day, overriding the philatelic viewpoint. I am sure you would not want that to happen again. Do not delay as CfDs get dealt with fairly quickly. TIA ww2censor 20:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Grading scheme and Medal of Honor

You use the MOH article as a sample FA. It just survied a FAR by much work by several of us, so I thought you'd want to change the grading scheme template to point to this new 31 July 2006 version vice the April version. The 31 July version is much better. Rlevse 14:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! We were going to change the article example because of the problems seen, but we never got around to it. This solves it, thanks! Walkerma 17:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the template since you said this was a good idea. Hope that's okay. Feel free to look it over in case I made a mistake somewhere.Rlevse 18:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)