User talk:Walkerma/Archive7

1337:

WVWP requests for publishable articles, one of my hopes was that groups would set up worklists on their most important topics, and I think that idea is now spreading slowly around Knowledge. WVWP is not likely to stop when we reach the end of our current "sweep", it's all part of an ongoing dialogue. A request for the major topics in each subject would be a natural thing to ask for on the next round. I'd hoped to get a decent looking tree system in place before we did this, so we could ask each project to add into a tree (so they could see how their own subject was being organised), but I suspect that ain't gonna happen unless someone really clever can clean up the tree format sometime soon.

294:

there something else that could do the same, but which is clearer, or more efficient, or quicker? It does need an expert in the subject area (that's why I chose chemistry), but we will need that anyway to decide the lower levels of things like Philosophy or Physics or Math (e.g. a list of the 40 most important mathematical theories). There is a "tree" script available for categories (hard to find , but it's there), but IMHO it still presents too narrow a view. The category system (I think) is rather like trying to use road signs only to make a journey - you only see the next town on the sign. I want something that's equivalent to a

451:

doesn't look like a proper minus sign, but I don't get worked up about it. Note: When I draw minuses in ChemDraw or IsisDraw for my work, I usually switch them into "Symbol" font for the same reason, they look more like minus signs. The equilibrium arrow symbol is similar (though browser support is more recent) - it works on most modern browsers such as Firefox and Opera, even the last few versions of IE, so I was surprised to hear of your problem with it. My old Win98 IE at home doesn't read a lot of the symbols, including even simple arrows, but I just put up with that. Cheers,

1433:

some common standards and procedures. However it sounds like you have some specific ideas in mind, I presume relating to the peer review aspect. Can you explain your ideas in more detail? I think that some form of peer review is needed for GA, but it should be quicker and simpler than for FA. Regarding CS gas, I hope it's good, I printed off a copy for one of my students today - he's going to do a poster about CS gas! I'll try to give it a closer look over the next few days. Gan canny, Walkerma 06:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

1294:, which is basically A-class (I think). When contacting the projects, we should've made some mention of GA. Basically, if they think it follows the criteria for GA, add it there. Since more people seem to be active in GA, it'll receive more validation towards acceptance (or removal) and since we'll be using GAs, we know roughly what the assessment for that article is. The drawback to this is that there's no room for comments. The other articles will need to be examined by us to ensure at least B-Class. 816: 273:(my tech skills are very limited!). If you click on a down arrow you go to the next (more specialised) level. If you click on an up arrow you go to a broader level. If you click @ you get an article, copyright symbol takes you to the category, and = takes you to a list. As an example, have a go navigating your way through this to iron(III) oxide (only one or two routes available at present, though that may change if I spend more time on it). You should go Chemistry -: --> 1437:

as a template. This would mean there is no hunting around to see what else you should be looking at when working on articles. With a bit of consistency editors could even jump from one project to the other with the basics already understood. I really have no idea how to go about this though, I'm not experienced enough with the old meta projects and template creation. Just thought it was worth mentioning in case you could help steer something along those line. Regards

501:. I'm very confused about the goal of the project and how the end result will look like. I have a hard time gathering my thoughts for this project, as it's very early on. I think one of the critical things necessary is the implementation of some kind of stable versioning system or article validation. Here is something I did sometime last week and I added a few comments today. It's more of my ramblings, I'd prefer if you don't post it on wp:1.0, just yet. :) It's 31: 409:, then you get a toc of all the projects. Click on the one you are interested in, and take a look at the contact date and any comments. You can also click on the link "Contact with WPxxxx" which will take you directly to our request for articles on their talk page (unless archived). I will try to help with this as time allows, but I'd really appreciate it if you can get the ball rolling. Cheers, 684:, which say "This (in)organic compound-related article is incomplete. You can help Knowledge by expanding it." I think this is essentially a request for expansion. I cannot provide specific reasons why these articles should be expanded, maybe the one(s) who placed the previous temlpates can say more. If it's not clear if the expansion tags should stay, I don't in any way insist this. 1383:, I think it's great that the two are very similar in meaning, because people are now cottoning on to this; "The WP1.0 folks think XXXX is A-Class, let's submit it as a GA." So in effect I think of most A-Class articles as "Potential GAs." There are a few very short GAs which I suspect would not pass muster as A-Class just because of length, but that may be debatable. 709: 536: 285:. You can skip a step, since on the Chemical substances page, in the Inorganic compounds column, you can see oxides listed there with a down arrow (should that be a double down arrow?) - oxides are one of the commonest types of inorganic compound. Also, for the 1.0 project, we could put into bold any articles that we think are OK to used for the 1088:, on the other hand, does seem to have all the requisite components of an A-class article, at least on initial reading. I'll confess that I have not re-read the full Court opinion of that case in several years, but it seems to cover all the main legal points, and it does evaluate and address the claims presented. 1103:

as Marbury v. Madison, for example); however, I have also included several cases that are while not monumentally important at a first glance, have nonetheless been extremely significant in the constitutional development of our country. These are cases such as Wickard v. Filburn or Slaughterhouse Cases.

1432:

Hi Sean, Thanks for your posting on my talk page. I do think it would be wonderful if we could get all of the different projects like WP:1.0, WP:GA, WP:AA, WP:FAC and so on all to work together more smoothly - I wish sometimes we could get everyone together in one (large!) room for a day and agree on

450:

This is another issue like the equilibrium arrows. Older browsers (esp. IE) couldn't read −, so we tended to go with -, but nowadays nearly everyone's browser (at least in the West, where most editors work) supports − and we tend to encourage that. I prefer it because the - symbol is too short, and

400:

No one has started doing that as yet, maybe we need a new page to keep track of these activities? Or should it go just in the Core Topics table? Our listing of the WikiProjects on Core Topics next to the articles is incomplete, btw. To look at WP 1.0 contacts I would recommend you take a look at the

248:

Just an idea. I was thinking... besides the Core Topics, perhaps we should look for Core topics in specific fields. There could be a Core Topics assessment table for individual subtopics. For example, the Math project can have assessments for its essential articles, such as math, Gauss, trigonometry,

1436:

Sorry I had nothing definite in mind, however thinking about it, it would make a lot of sense to have the processes for all of these things to be as similar as possible. This would include things like template use etc. I would also like to see a synopsis of each project including most relevant links

1416:

Saw your comments on the GA talk pages, theres gotta be a way to streamline GA, FA, peer review and WP:AA I would have thought that would both help wikipedia 1.0 and address the criticisms of the GA project. I was wondering if you thought there as any mileage in looking at that, or do you think that

1316:

Second idea that's been bugging me for a while is that I think we need to ask for core topics from wikiprojects. This is a fusion of Core Topics and WvW and is related more towards improving Knowledge's essential articles, but it'll also help with 1.0. It tells members the condition of that topic on

1224:

That was your first barnstar!? You gotta be kidding me, you deserve many more! I'm not sure if that article validation is just a side-project or will actually be implemented into WP someday. There's discussion dating back to 2004 so it's moving very slowly. :( Do you know article validation has been

1102:

Hey. I came up with a list of twenty important Supreme Court decisions per your request. In doing so, I've realized 1) how incredibly difficult it is to limit the list to 20, and 2) how subjective the list may be. There are certainly several cases that belong on every "landmark decisions" list (such

1043:

I saw that you are looking for suggestions of Wiki SCOTUS cases for inclusion to Knowledge 1.0. I had a few questions I was hoping you could clear up. How many cases do you think will be included? What are the criteria for inclusion? Are you seeking representative cases from different constitutional

1305:

WVWP, so our early messages naturally didn't mention GA. However both Shanel & I have started using your amended message to WikiProjects that includes mention of GAs. I have signed up for the GA WikiProject partly to help coordinate this, and I expect a lot of cross-fertilisation; Any A-Class

1248:

I haven't really thought too much about the 'proposal'. I'm not sure if proposal was the right word. There are a few things I want to do. One is move our proposals towards 1.0 from the talk page to a new page, as well as have a more general proposal that most people agree with. I want to talk about

1065:

I will go through our SCOTUS cases and try to come up with a list of twenty or so candidates that are, at least in my opinion, good enough for inclusion in WP:1.0. It'll probably take me at least a couple of days, as there is a great number of cases I'd like to review. Please also let me know if an

738:

status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Knowledge (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to

565:

174:

Thanks for your interest. The project has appeared dormant because few people have signed up recently. There is no current coordination, but the current people who are signed up are all working on various political articles right now (we have also created templates such as the political campaigns

1378:

Yes, these mean similar things, but they are not synonymous. We need to be able to look at an article we want in WP1.0 and say, "Yes, that's an A-Class article". If we find 50 articles we think are A-Class, we shouldn't have to submit them all to the GA project and await their decision before we

1207:

I see you've done a bit more work with WP:1.0. Let me know if you need some help with anything. I think I'm going to do a proposals page for 1.0 or something similar, if I get a chance. There are a lot ideas out there and I think they need to be sorted out. PS, I found this site recently, it shows

1081:

has an excellent historical write-up with a great deal of appropriate factual context that illuminates the social circumstances of the decision. However, from a legal point of view, I would not call it an A-class article in that it devotes a brief paragraph to the actual legal reasoning behind the

1336:

I'd come to exactly the same conclusion as you, mainly through working on the trees - I began to think, "When we do the tree on (say) Egypt, how do we know what are the most important topics in that area?" The obvious solution is to get the WikiProjects to do this for us. Even with the original

293:

My old PhD adviser, who wrote the first computer program used in chemistry, always had a huge "tree" of subroutines pinned on the wall to show the complete structure of his program that he was working on. I find something like that helps. Do you think something like this tree works for that? Is

129:

My class's editing of ca. 25 stubs should be apparent - SO2Cl2, Dess-Martin, MFP, PuO2, GeCl4, AgF2, H2Se, CdSe,... We will select a whole new set soon, so it would be helpful to us and the Wiki-Chemicals project if someone updated the classification of the Chemicals worklist, because we tend to

1108:

I would advise the following. See if you can obtain a similar top-20 list from other Supreme Court contributors, and then compare the resulting lists to identify overlapping cases. I am sure that there will easily be at least 20 that appear on numerous lists, and this should help combat whatever

1044:

issues (e.g., First Amendment cases, due process cases, interstate commerce cases, etc.), or just Wiki cases that are simply, well, good articles? I would be glad to make several suggestions, but I will await until I hear from you to tailor my recommendations to your list of criteria (if any).

263:

Great! You seem to be thinking the same way as Maurreen & myself! Once we go beyond the top level (articles like "Chemistry") in the Core Topics, we need to start categorising things. These have been done to some extent in most of the 1000 lists we link from the Core Topics page, but I

318:

Wow, that is very nicely implemented. I like it. Ideally, that is perfect, it seems a little too complicated as it is (the wikicode). I don't know of any other similar tree system, but I'm sure one could be created in the same manner. It seems that your idea is a more sophisticated form of

140:

Sorry I was slow in responding, I didn't catch the full meaning at first. Thanks for this list, I shall go through these in time. I also saw your new list on your userpage. Listing the articles worked on helps us keep on top of wikifying them and re-assessing them. I just did this with

893:

Sorry about that, I was completely unaware of these sub-pages until just now! I've posted one on the Balearic cave goat already. When I was rating them before I thought, "I wish I could leave more detailed comments somewhere" blissfully unaware that I was supposed to! Thanks,

108:

I will mainly be working on inorganic and organometallic stuff. My students will be assigned to upgrading stubs, at least I hope that they will be upgrading them. Then maybe we'll move on to more challenging topics. I am interested in learning more about the accepted format.

907:

Thanks for that - I'll make it clearer in the instructions that there are subpages. The comments you've written are very good, so thanks for your work there. Sorry to be picky, but any chance you can add a score to each individual criteria? A good example can be found at

1195:

Hey, great job on the Antarctica expansion! Thanks for the compliment you gave me a few days ago. It was actually easy as there were so many resources from other Knowledge articles, reliable sources from national governments and great images to select from, including one

1421:

for a while now and was hoping you could give it the once over from a proper chemistry POV. My last organic chemistry was at A-level and that was a while ago, unfortunately I have no access to academic journals apart from what I've been able to find online. Cheers

1249:

possible limitations, things to do, and incorporate any other comments and ideas that people have all over Knowledge. The German WP should also be mentioned and linked. I also think some straw polls may be helpful. I particularly like the organization of

783:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on 610:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on 238:

You're right about the History of Poland project, it is active. I do *usually* check the talk pages and see if there have been, not only comments, but replies to those comments. I'm not sure what happened there. I have removed the tag now.

1082:

decision, and has no mention at all of the difficulty and importance of Warren securing a 9-0 opinion (no small feat). I think these aspects are absolutely crucial to a proper understanding of the case, and their omittance is unfortunate.

388:

Hi, Martin. I was thinking of asking the Wikiprojects, etc., about working on the relevant core topics. I wasn't sure whether anyone else was doing that. If not, I'll start. If so, maybe we could meet in the middle somewhere.

909: 1232:

We don't ever give barnstars in chemistry, for some reason, though I've given "free beer" to some folks as a thank you in the past. Regarding article validation, I have a very specific meaning in mind ("How do we

1275:

and sees the main page, he does not know how developed and old the project is, the process, what needs to be done, what are the pros and cons, the fact that Jimbo has expressed interest in this project, and

159:

Ok, we'll continue our focus on the stubs from your list. The following could be upgraded from stub to start status - PuO2, GeCl4, WF6. And thank you for your cleanup-Wikification on many of of our entries

1322: 232: 214:

No problem. I'm going to try and help out more with this project and hopefully get some momentum. I intend on helping with the Work with Wikiprojects and simply expanding needed articles. Is there a

440:

Elementary question: Explain the difference or a preference for - vs −. Is there some short list of key format preferences? I noticed that someone or something occasionally reformats to the latter.

915:

If you have any comments about article assessment then please feel free to get in touch with me or discuss it on the talk pages - it's all quite new, so all comments are welcome. Thanks again,

145:, your student seems to have done a useful expansion of an important compound. It would be best of all for the project if your students picked some stubs (or starts?) from the worklist such as 1365:

PS, I've seen some people using both A-class and GA. Honestly, I think they're the basically the same. Do you think the two are synonymous? Or is there a big enough difference to distinguish?

402: 779:

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

606:

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

974:

Thanks for the contact. The various chemistry wikiprojects have a variety of lists here that may provide helpful source material, many of which are incomplete, and in fact we have also a

432:

and, i think it is fair to say, most of the oxyanion pages. I'm not wedded to the name. Some other people thought different. Let's pick something, and create the best encyclopedia ever.

1200:. I find these type of articles easy to improve as it's mostly information and very little controversy. Even so, I'm surprised it made it past FAC. I may improve some other countries ( 1290:

This will probably need to be discussed elsewhere, but I've been thinking about our Work via Wikiprojects (WvW). Actually, I had two thoughts. I think we should also coordinate with

978:. However for now I'm busy with work in the real world, and already overextended in my work on Knowledge, so I'm sorry I can't offer to help out. Good luck with your new project. 1446:

Your comment helped to crystallise some ideas. I plan to introduce a couple of new navigation boxes that should help bring these groups together more. Thanks for the prodding!

1379:

process them! GA is likely to become a more formal process, involving some element of review and debate, but the 1.0 project needs to be able to make its own snap assessments.

877: 196:, although those need to be expanded and cleaned-up first. Those seem like the best for a print version of Knowledge. For a short list of relevant articles, you might try 1455:

I should say, I'm not technically that strong, so I can't do some of the things you suggest, but I think if you & I have a go and do what we can, it may help somewhat.

824: 1318: 1396: 119:

Sounds great! Sign up on the project page as a participant and choose something from the worklist that interests you. The stubs idea sounds excellent! Cheers,

405:, specifically look at the seven (soon to be eight) major categories listed at the top of the page - Arts, etc. Click on the appropriate link there such as 1326: 953:! If you're interested in chemical terminology on the level of building a wiki-based thesaurus and dictionary, let me know -- I am the lead developer of the 869: 406: 1402:

Just to let you know I've finished contacting the rest of the Wikiprojects on this page, although I admit I cheated and user AutoWikiBrowser to do it ;)--

487:

I'll post a (big) reply later today after I do some researching. Those are some pivotal questions that need to be answered. I hope you get well soon! :)

264:

personally think we need to set up "trees" to see how we want to organise things. This is because I think it's important to VISUALISE the organisation.

467: 253:. This may be an idea solely for WikiProjects, completely irrelevant to the 1.0 project at this point. I'm just throwing it out there. :) Thoughts? 780: 607: 338:

what I'm looking for! Side note: I'm a little confused as to the scope of this project and the path to achieve this goal. I've left some comments

784: 611: 1204:) in the future. :) Technology cotf isn't going too well... I just don't know what to add, and it's difficult finding encyclopedic sources. 742:

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use

569:

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use

838: 989: 227:

Ok, I've contacted everyone for the Hobbies/Recreation Wikiprojects. I've received a couple replies about each having their own lists. (

633: 661: 1261: 975: 1018:

like to join this wikiproject and am still not certain how I can contribute. Lemme know how, and I would be pleased to help.

773: 769: 637: 600: 596: 516:

Another question, shouldn't we be asking the WikiProjects for a list of core topics, as well? See also my post on the WP:1.0.

164: 134: 113: 1306:

articles we find from the WikiProjects can be proposed as GAs, and most GAs can be added to our lists of A-Class articles.

1237:

that the article is accurate?") which differs from how the term is (mis)used in some places on Knowledge. See my comments

1250: 763: 730: 698: 590: 557: 525: 1238: 873: 249:

calculus, algorithm, number, etc. I'm working one for Computer Science, of which I am a member of; it will be worked on

97: 1329:, but it's not categorized. The two projects above is more of what I'm looking for. I don't know just more thoughts. :) 1181:(I have at least 10 other cases that I would love to include, so let me know if your group does want more suggestions.) 678: 197: 93: 89: 85: 81: 77: 73: 69: 65: 58: 668: 38: 931:

Numbers now added, thanks. I had looked at 1 or 2 reviews, can't think why I missed that! I'll have to write the

815: 360: 830: 809: 250: 1271:

In making these changes, I think we need to change the main project page because when a person coming from a

1464:

I can always give something a bash if you have something in mind? Ever get a chance to look at CS gas btw?

502: 629: 793: 1066:

when a SCOTUS hierarchy tree gets constructed - if you need any input on content, I'd be glad to help.

919: 884: 950: 339: 847: 623: 185: 1366: 1317:

WP and gives them a to-do list in some ways. Other projects have done a phenomenal job with this (

1215: 1091:

Let me know if you have any questions, and I'll get back to you with the 20-article list shortly.

997: 506: 488: 343: 320: 254: 240: 219: 1209: 1021: 757: 746: 584: 429: 270: 47: 17: 1260:

Yes, the "Why Stable versions" page is nice, and I completely agree. I also really like the new

965: 615: 193: 142: 1213: 1354: 1109:

inadvertent subjective bias such a selection, when done on an individual level, may produce.

932: 788: 189: 146: 957:

project and we work on building a universal, relational wiki-based source of terminology.

916: 881: 654: 303: 228: 1485:

Hi, I'm just glad I didn't start a flame war by changing it :) Thanks for your comment. —

880:. You can add comments to justify your reasoning if you like, but it's not compulsory. 708: 535: 1062:

Thanks for your response on my talk page and for clarifications of inclusion criteria.

962: 685: 441: 215: 161: 131: 110: 961:

which uses terms from the GEMET multilingual thesaurus of environmental terminology.--

734:. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the 561:. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the 1465: 1456: 1447: 1438: 1423: 1384: 1338: 1307: 1272: 1253:, but the page for 1.0 will be different, of course. Tell me any ideas that you have. 1024: 993: 979: 936: 895: 573: 498: 471: 452: 410: 390: 374: 307: 150: 120: 1291: 1197: 876:. Please remember to do a broken-down assessment at the individual pages, such as 855: 319:

categorization, which is great. I would love to see this applied for other topics.

1489: 1468: 1459: 1450: 1441: 1426: 1406: 1387: 1369: 1341: 1218: 1027: 1000: 982: 968: 939: 922: 898: 887: 858: 798: 688: 640: 509: 491: 474: 455: 444: 413: 394: 377: 367: 346: 323: 310: 257: 243: 222: 204: 179: 153: 123: 1350:

Heh, I guess it's easier to find what's wrong than fix it, so I said to myself, "

1403: 988: 954: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1225:

confirmed to be a feature in WP? I hope so, as it will give WP:1.0 a big boost.

739:

the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

566:

the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

373:

Definitely, thanks for all your work on that. I'll look over it this weekend.

306:! Please give my your general thoughts, and feedback on my test tree. Thanks, 1486: 1186:

Let me know what else I can do to help. Cheers. RidG 08:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

364: 1092: 1048: 735: 562: 201: 176: 235:). Should I just link to the lists rather than copying their assessments? 425: 149:, these are a selection of compounds we thought were worth focusing on. 298:, where you can see several of the towns ahead, as well as the general 1418: 1201: 334:

Second reply. After reanalyzing your "tree", I have to say that is

1417:

would be too big an undertaking? As an aside I've been working on

987: 175:

navigation box). Feel free to join up if you want to. Thanks. -

753: 580: 958: 756:. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read 583:. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read 25: 814: 363:, if you have some time, can you have a look? Thank you! 650:

Hi there. Indeed, I've tagged a number of articles with

103: 1014:

Sorry about that. I wasn't sure of the formality. I

776:

for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

603:

for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

302:

landscape where you are. I think for WP 1.0, we need

878:

Knowledge:Article assessment/Extinct mammals/Aurochs

996:and Chemistry-related contributions. Sincerely, 1047:Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, 1397:Knowledge:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WPScience 1058:Re: SCOTUS articles for WP:1.0 (Updated 3/9/6) 289:project, and leave it un-bolded if it's not. 8: 868:Hi there. Thanks for your additions to the 837:Please help to improve this article towards 355:request for help from sodium sulfate editor 342:. Sorry if it sounds like I'm rambling. :) 104:I'm going to be working on WP Chemistry too 1283:Yes! This is exactly what I had in mind! 497:I posted a response on the talk page at 275:Inorganic compounds by last group -: --> 770:Knowledge:Image copyright tags#Fair_use 597:Knowledge:Image copyright tags#Fair_use 269:I have created a very crude example on 825:Mathematics Collaboration of the Month 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1173:19 Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) 359:I did some work on potassium sulfate 7: 1152:12 Korematsu v. United States (1944) 959:See our current read-only prototype 768:or one of the other tags listed at 595:or one of the other tags listed at 1146:10 Schenck v. United States (1919) 935:review tonight, I have to get on! 130:pursue chemical stubs. Thanks, -- 24: 61:. Other close archives include: 57:For other talk page archives see 1262:Knowledge:Scientific_peer_review 1212:, early developer of Mediawiki. 1176:20 United States v. Lopez (1995) 707: 660:. I did that following a recent 534: 29: 1131:5 Dredd Scott v. Sanford (1857) 1069:Regarding your questions about 976:Dictionary of chemical formulas 845:Last month's collaboration was 703: 530: 1161:15 Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) 1128:4 McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) 774:Knowledge:Image copyright tags 731:Image:Hydrochloric acid 01.jpg 699:Image:Hydrochloric acid 01.jpg 601:Knowledge:Image copyright tags 558:Image:Hydrochloric acid 04.jpg 526:Image:Hydrochloric acid 04.jpg 468:History of Science WikiProject 384:Core topics & Wikiprojects 1: 1251:Knowledge:Why_stable_versions 1134:6 Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) 940:19:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC) 923:19:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC) 899:18:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC) 888:18:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC) 859:14:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC) 804:Your MathCOTW nomination won! 799:03:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC) 760:, and then use a tag such as 689:18:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 641:20:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 587:, and then use a tag such as 510:21:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 492:17:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 475:00:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 165:18:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 154:06:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 1164:16 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 1149:11 Wickard v. Filburn (1942) 1143:9 Lochner v. New York (1905) 874:Knowledge:Article assessment 785:criteria for speedy deletion 612:criteria for speedy deletion 466:Please consider joining the 456:18:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC) 445:17:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC) 414:22:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC) 395:03:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC) 378:19:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 368:13:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 361:User:Stone/potassium sulfate 347:07:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC) 324:22:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 311:19:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 258:19:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 244:21:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC) 223:07:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC) 205:20:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 180:03:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC) 170:WP Campaigns & Elections 135:15:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 124:06:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 114:06:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 1140:8 Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) 1137:7 Civil Rights Cases (1883) 1122:2 Marbury v. Madison (1803) 198:Template:PoliticalCampaigns 59:User talk:Walkerma/Archives 1505: 1490:08:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC) 1469:13:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC) 1460:01:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC) 1451:01:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC) 1442:10:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC) 1427:03:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC) 1388:05:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC) 1370:02:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC) 1342:05:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC) 1170:18 Texas v. Johnson (1989) 274:Chemical substances -: --> 1407:22:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC) 1219:18:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC) 1125:3 Fletcher v. Peck (1810) 1028:17:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC) 1001:06:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC) 983:03:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC) 969:01:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC) 839:featured article standard 1155:13 Brown v. Board (1954) 831:Polynomial identity ring 810:Polynomial identity ring 752:to release it under the 679:inorganic-compound-start 579:to release it under the 1119:1 Calder v. Bull (1798) 1360:". Well, I'll try. :) 1208:article validation by 1158:14 Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 1003: 819: 669:organic-compound-start 646:Requests for expansion 1191:Antarctica and WP:1.0 1167:17 Roe v. Wade (1973) 991: 870:Extinct mammals topic 818: 728:Thanks for uploading 555:Thanks for uploading 277:iron(III) oxide or Fe 42:of past discussions. 1022:Reply (goes to talk) 910:this past assessment 764:Non-free fair use in 662:discussion at WP:SFD 591:Non-free fair use in 403:WVWP subproject page 1327:WP:Computer science 1114:So: here's my list. 848:Group (mathematics) 186:Political campaigns 1325:). I did this for 1210:User:Magnus Manske 1004: 864:Article assessment 820: 716:This media may be 543:This media may be 462:History of Science 430:Category:Oxyanions 18:User talk:Walkerma 1481:Assessment scheme 992:For your role in 726: 725: 553: 552: 218:for the project? 194:Voter suppression 184:I would recomend 143:sulfuryl chloride 100: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 1496: 1359: 1353: 1319:military history 1086:Texas v. Johnson 1075:Texas v. Johnson 946:Wiki in the news 933:Australopithecus 851: 812: 787:. Thank you. -- 781:my contributions 767: 751: 745: 721: 711: 704: 683: 677: 673: 667: 659: 653: 626: 621: 618: 608:my contributions 594: 578: 572: 548: 538: 531: 304:Lewis and Clark 190:Campaign finance 147:hydrobromic acid 64: 33: 32: 26: 1504: 1503: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1483: 1414: 1400: 1357: 1351: 1193: 1060: 1038: 1009: 948: 866: 853: 844: 821: 808: 806: 766:|article name}} 761: 749: 743: 722: 715: 702: 681: 675: 671: 665: 657: 651: 648: 624: 619: 616: 593:|article name}} 588: 576: 570: 549: 542: 529: 485: 464: 438: 422: 386: 357: 284: 280: 212: 172: 106: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1502: 1500: 1482: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1453: 1413: 1410: 1399: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1373: 1372: 1362: 1361: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1331: 1330: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1296: 1295: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1278: 1277: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1255: 1254: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1227: 1226: 1192: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1183: 1182: 1178: 1177: 1174: 1171: 1168: 1165: 1162: 1159: 1156: 1153: 1150: 1147: 1144: 1141: 1138: 1135: 1132: 1129: 1126: 1123: 1120: 1116: 1115: 1111: 1110: 1105: 1104: 1098: 1059: 1056: 1054: 1037: 1034: 1032: 1008: 1005: 986: 985: 947: 944: 943: 942: 928: 927: 926: 925: 913: 902: 901: 865: 862: 828: 813: 807: 805: 802: 724: 723: 714: 712: 701: 697:Image Tagging 695: 693: 647: 644: 551: 550: 541: 539: 528: 524:Image Tagging 522: 520: 518: 517: 513: 512: 484: 481: 479: 463: 460: 459: 458: 437: 434: 421: 418: 417: 416: 385: 382: 381: 380: 356: 353: 352: 351: 350: 349: 329: 328: 327: 326: 300: 299: 287: 286: 282: 278: 266: 265: 211: 208: 171: 168: 157: 156: 127: 126: 105: 102: 56: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1501: 1492: 1491: 1488: 1480: 1470: 1467: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1458: 1454: 1452: 1449: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1440: 1435: 1434: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1425: 1420: 1411: 1409: 1408: 1405: 1398: 1395: 1389: 1386: 1382: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1371: 1368: 1364: 1363: 1356: 1349: 1348: 1343: 1340: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1315: 1314: 1309: 1304: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1288: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1274: 1270: 1269: 1263: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1252: 1247: 1246: 1240: 1236: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1217: 1214: 1211: 1205: 1203: 1199: 1190: 1185: 1184: 1180: 1179: 1175: 1172: 1169: 1166: 1163: 1160: 1157: 1154: 1151: 1148: 1145: 1142: 1139: 1136: 1133: 1130: 1127: 1124: 1121: 1118: 1117: 1113: 1112: 1107: 1106: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1096: 1094: 1089: 1087: 1083: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1067: 1063: 1057: 1055: 1052: 1050: 1045: 1041: 1035: 1033: 1030: 1029: 1026: 1023: 1019: 1017: 1012: 1006: 1002: 999: 995: 990: 984: 981: 977: 973: 972: 971: 970: 967: 964: 960: 956: 952: 945: 941: 938: 934: 930: 929: 924: 921: 918: 914: 911: 906: 905: 904: 903: 900: 897: 892: 891: 890: 889: 886: 883: 879: 875: 871: 863: 861: 860: 857: 852: 850: 849: 842: 840: 835: 833: 832: 826: 817: 811: 803: 801: 800: 796: 795: 790: 786: 782: 777: 775: 771: 765: 759: 755: 748: 740: 737: 733: 732: 719: 713: 710: 706: 705: 700: 696: 694: 691: 690: 687: 680: 670: 663: 656: 645: 643: 642: 639: 635: 631: 627: 622: 614:. Thank you. 613: 609: 604: 602: 598: 592: 586: 582: 575: 567: 564: 560: 559: 546: 540: 537: 533: 532: 527: 523: 521: 515: 514: 511: 508: 504: 500: 496: 495: 494: 493: 490: 483:Odds and ends 482: 480: 477: 476: 473: 469: 461: 457: 454: 449: 448: 447: 446: 443: 436:Minus formats 435: 433: 431: 427: 419: 415: 412: 408: 404: 399: 398: 397: 396: 392: 383: 379: 376: 372: 371: 370: 369: 366: 362: 354: 348: 345: 341: 337: 333: 332: 331: 330: 325: 322: 317: 316: 315: 314: 313: 312: 309: 305: 297: 292: 291: 290: 276:oxides -: --> 272: 268: 267: 262: 261: 260: 259: 256: 252: 246: 245: 242: 236: 234: 230: 225: 224: 221: 217: 209: 207: 206: 203: 199: 195: 191: 187: 182: 181: 178: 169: 167: 166: 163: 155: 152: 148: 144: 139: 138: 137: 136: 133: 125: 122: 118: 117: 116: 115: 112: 101: 99: 95: 91: 87: 83: 79: 75: 71: 67: 62: 60: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 1484: 1415: 1401: 1380: 1302: 1234: 1206: 1194: 1097: 1090: 1085: 1084: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1068: 1064: 1061: 1053: 1046: 1042: 1039: 1036:SCOTUS cases 1031: 1020: 1015: 1013: 1010: 949: 867: 854: 846: 843: 836: 829: 823:The current 822: 794:cheeks clone 792: 778: 741: 729: 727: 717: 692: 664:, replacing 649: 605: 568: 556: 554: 544: 519: 486: 478: 465: 439: 423: 420:Oxysomething 387: 358: 335: 301: 295: 288: 271:my test page 247: 237: 226: 213: 183: 173: 158: 128: 107: 63: 55: 43: 37: 1040:Hey there, 955:WiktionaryZ 917:violet/riga 882:violet/riga 233:Video games 36:This is an 1323:videogames 1077:. I think 1007:Gramicidin 505:. Cheers. 503:right here 424:I created 160:already.-- 1301:GA began 963:Eloquence 951:Very nice 747:GFDL-self 736:copyright 686:Conscious 563:copyright 442:Smokefoot 162:Smokefoot 132:Smokefoot 111:Smokefoot 98:Archive10 1466:SeanMack 1457:Walkerma 1448:Walkerma 1439:SeanMack 1424:SeanMack 1412:Wye Aye! 1385:Walkerma 1339:Walkerma 1308:Walkerma 1025:Jgassens 980:Walkerma 937:Walkerma 896:Walkerma 758:fair use 585:fair use 472:ragesoss 453:Walkerma 426:oxyanion 411:Walkerma 391:Maurreen 375:Walkerma 308:Walkerma 151:Walkerma 121:Walkerma 94:Archive9 90:Archive8 86:Archive6 82:Archive5 78:Archive4 74:Archive3 70:Archive2 66:Archive1 1381:However 1367:Gflores 1355:sofixit 1216:Gflores 1011:Hello, 998:Gflores 856:Meekohi 772:. See 718:deleted 620:Kantari 599:. See 545:deleted 507:Gflores 489:Gflores 344:Gflores 336:exactly 321:Gflores 255:Gflores 241:Gflores 229:Pokemon 220:Gflores 216:WP:TODO 39:archive 1419:CS gas 1404:Shanel 1273:WP:1.0 1202:Mexico 994:WP:1.0 789:Schnee 655:expand 499:WP:1.0 192:, and 1487:Pengo 1303:after 1292:WP:GA 1276:more. 1264:page. 1198:WP:FP 1093:RidG 1079:Brown 1071:Brown 1049:RidG 1016:would 617:Nacon 365:Stone 16:< 1239:here 1235:know 1073:and 754:GFDL 674:and 581:GFDL 574:GFDL 428:and 407:Arts 340:here 251:here 202:Tjss 177:Tjss 920:(t) 885:(t) 872:at 470:.-- 296:map 210:1.0 200:. - 1358:}} 1352:{{ 1321:, 1095:] 1051:] 841:. 834:. 827:is 797:) 762:{{ 750:}} 744:{{ 682:}} 676:{{ 672:}} 666:{{ 658:}} 652:{{ 632:|| 589:{{ 577:}} 571:{{ 393:] 231:, 188:, 96:— 92:— 88:— 84:— 80:— 76:— 72:— 68:— 1241:. 966:* 912:. 791:( 720:. 638:m 636:| 634:c 630:t 628:| 625:e 547:. 283:3 281:O 279:2 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index