User talk:Walkerma/Archive8

1005:

GA status if there is consensus there (although the fact that AA uses different criteria to GA is a bit of a problem). I would also suggest that people ratifying articles for 1.0 could nominate sufficiently high class articles they come across for GA status. Admittedly this is all "feeding in" to GA rather than a more helpful style of multi-level co-operation. Perhaps GA reviewers could be integrated into 1.0 in some way, but you have to remember that GA reviewers rarely tend to be experts in the fields they are reviewing (they are more concerned with e.g. basic reference checking than with fact checking) so it would make more sense to use the GA list as a resource within 1.0 (identifying articles that at least hit certain benchmarks). I don't know whether people at FAC or AA would like to become proxy GA reviewers too, and there is a risk it would invite more low quality candidates to be nominated for FA. Still, these are just a bunch of ideas and I wondered if any would spark with any of your thoughts?

894:

mentioned some things about the Knowledge community (I said that mostly the WikiChemists work well together in a friendly way, too!). I even included a picture of a handsome Dutch chemist at one point! The second part covered some of the strengths and weaknesses of Knowledge, and I covered the Nature review as well as an academic study. To close (beginning to rush a bit, I was about a minute behind where I'd hoped to be) I looked to the future, and I gave a few conclusions to close. At that point it was 23-24 minutes in, so there was time for one question asking about how you cite Knowledge. A podcast or webcast was made of the

164:

and I put Knowledge:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WPScience as the page name. Then I went to the "More options" tab and checked the "append message" box. Then I just typed in the message, including the header. Then I went to the start tab, changed the summary, and clicked on Start the process. I told AWB to ignore links that weren't Knowledge talk links as it was going through the list, but I suppose you could also remove the other links from the list beforehand. There's probably a better way to do it but I wouldn't know how. --

183:. (Some other organization schemes could be used, but this one seems simple and effective.) I'm going to sit on this a day or longer: I included suggestions for additional core topic articles by level. I think if we focused on completing something like these levels (or sub-groups) of core topic articles we could have a real sense of progress -- knowing that a stage of core topic work was complete after finishing off each level. If you get a chance to look this idea over, do you think it could be useful? 630:

categories. I agree with Martin that it is good to make conceptual structures explicit. That sometimes involves discussion/critique and polishing (because there are various concepts involved. The top level descriptions can be straightforward but footnotes can include and point to more detailed explanations of conceptual structure. (Sorry that I listed so many options above -- I was in a rush yesterday afternoon and was trying get the text online.) I

31: 326:(WikiProjects) and existing channels (AID and COTWs), and I think those are things we all agree are good (we will burn ourselves out trying to write even 150 FAs ourselves!). Our job at WP1.0 is (IMHO) to build the infrastructure to allow all of us (mainly others, we're only a few) to improve all of the important articles quickly and using expert help. For me it has "substance" because it tells us in 733: 1286:

theme be almost annotated tables of contents to whole fields) -- it would make them much easier to write. One reason: This would make it much easier to defer POV issues to the next level. It would be nice to find some best examples of types of portal articles: comparing those that have some narrative & theory summary with those with very short summaries. Any ideas? --

228:

front page scheme is a useful one and some ideas about that and how it could be used it might be helpful (or not). Tying such thoughts into other Knowledge thinking on this, such as by Larry Sanger, and with the Propaedia system and theories of knowledge would be fun too. If and when time allows... OK, back to moving beyond procrastination...

606:(I believe this was based loosely on the French top level cats). As for what we call these, we can decide onwce we pick one. I think it is good to make conceptual structure explicit (that's in effect one of the ideas of the tree structure, in effect). All of our descriptions should be straightforward and clear to " 815: 1285:

and other very general "society" articles too -- don't know when I'll get to it. These are mind-bogglingly broad subjects to think about short articles for. I'm growing found of the idea of offering concise summaries of topics in the most general articles -- really having them be portals (even having

1213:

I am sorry to hear you were ill; I am hopeful you are feeling better. I am glad you found the list useful - as I said, if you guys still need more notable cases, I would be happy to append the list I gave you with another 10-20 cases. I would be more than happy to help your team in any way I can with

1093:

and similar templates in articles. I want to be sure it looks good before I upload it, though, because I'm sure some people will complain. I think it's a much more concise way to do a "See also" or "Related projects", and currently there are many relevant projects that are not linked, so people may

1331:

Martin thank you for your helpful comments. Your considerable attention is helpful not just to me but many like me. I have done some editing off-line as you recommend. The Tawkerbot2 thing just froze my edit and I couldnt even cut and paste back into another application - hence my anger. I also

1170:

These small hidden remarks, no idiot would normally notice unless he is obsessed with these things: As far as I know there is no timezone at GMT-2 in the US. As you wrote that you'll be busy in GMT-2, I wondered what that could be. So, it is easily found out you're on Greenland, or in Brazil. Either

903:

I was worried about how some in the audience might feel about open access, but because of the nature of the session (on Social Software) most seemed to be open access advocates. In discussions it was clear that some in the chemical information business are very interested in using wikis, and we may

629:

I agree with Maureen that simplicity at top (for general use) is good. I think picking a few options and refining those is a good idea. We may want to decide to go with around an 8-fold top level rather than 3 or 4 category top levels. This can cut down a little on need for extra verbiage to explain

601:

Thanks. I'm responding here for clarity. I think we need to pick a 2 or 3 choices from the selection and then put them to the vote. We can perhaps pick our favourite, then go to the main WP1.0 talk page to propose a structure. Personally I like "Alternate 1" and "Alternate 2". #2 has to be on the

439:

Hi, As mentioned in a recent post, for now, more or less solely, I am going to think about basic knowledge outlines or trees in Knowledge. It occurs to me that listing a number of options of basic topic outlines and dialoguing about those is a way to go! So, in response to Maurreen's tree suggestion

1425:

Also, I'd be willing to assist with moving things along or leading efforts for this topic ... but I cannot guarantee a speedy turnaround. What are the timelines? Moreover, is there a succinct one-pager/primer or the like (besides the infobox on the right!) about the project, or can you provide me

1004:

Wikipedias. They use the FAC page to pick the GAs as well. I've seen comments on FAC before like "this is a good article, but not yet a featured one". What would make a degree of sense is to formally allow FAC discussions to ratify GA status without FA status. Similary, AA could be allowed to award

956:

Martin: sorry if I got carried away inserting the CAS links into the chemboxes of the articles that we work on. One of our articles got a "correction" that I interpreted to imply that we should be using this linking format. We are content-oriented, usually steering clear of the format stuff. Say

893:

I was a bit nervous as expected, but I think it went pretty well. The talk was titled "Knowledge: Social Revolution or Information Disaster?" The first part explained what Knowledge is, its Alexa ranking, I showed examples of the user's perspective and the perspective of a regular editor, and also

653:

Note: Please see the latest option for top level topics which is listed on the Core topics talk page. This is Long Option 4A, which is based on the English Knowledge lists of lists page main categories. (Other options are linked there.) I think comparing 2A and 4A and the originals of both of those

615:

As I've mentioned before I do think we can have alternative categories cutting across the main ones. On the main en page there is one such category, "Biography". So I think we could have one of the type 4 organisations as an alternative system, added later. For now I think simplicity is the best

1455:

Thanks for your note; the suggested course of action regarding a gazetteer makes sense, but it will probably have to be expanded somewhat to account for locales and other over-arching topics (e.g., landforms, etc.) I think we can do so through merely adding relevant 'branches' to the topic tree.

1067:. I am very happy with this because who better to assess an article on Buffy the Vampire Slayer than a member of WP:Buffy?! Worklists are (I believe) allowing the projects to find their own GACs more easily, and fix up their B-Class articles to make them GACs, so now we can get WikiProject -: --> 602:

list because that corresponds with Maurreen's tree, and #1 is basically #2 with history added. I'm assuming that maths goes in with science & technology, is that what you planned? A third choice might be something with more at the top level, such as Vir's original set of eight as used on the

163:

Sorry for the late reply, I keep forgetting. I agree with everything you and Gflores have said, and I look forward to moving onto the next stage. I will try to leave comments on the roadmap to publication tomorrow. As for using AWB, what I did was tell it to make a list from the links on the page,

1081:

I like the idea of there being an independent review of the article at WP:GAN. As I see it, WP1.0, WikiProjects and WP:AA can provide the initial "This looks good" assessment that then generates candidates for GA. Most 1.0 and AA assessments are based on one person's view, so the second look by

1020:

I really wish we could do the joint GA/FA thing on the English Knowledge, but I think the anti-GA people would just get upset and we would have 100kB of heated comments that would waste everyone's time and could even jeapordise the GA proposal. I use the word proposal deliberately - I think most

929:

Hey - Noticed you're working on the Version 1.0 project - would love to get involved since it's probably a whole lot more useful than my usual aimless editing and categorizing. If you could provide some guidance or a to-do list, I'd be thrilled to jump right into the project. Thanks, hope to hear

675:

Martin, I wrote some background about myself and my research on Knowledge on my talk page. I was unsure about whether to participate while researching Knowledge. I decided participation is best (if complicated in several ways). I also put a new post on the core topics talk page. If you have time,

325:

I have to say, I really like it myself. I don't see a problem with "process" in this context, to me that's something a roadmap should include (how to get from A to B in our case is a process). I think Titoxd quite rightly puts a lot of emphasis of bringing in lots of help from interested groups

243:

Rather than you doing that, why don't WE at WP1.0 try to do that for you (not for a while, there is in important conference for me just over a week away), then you take a look at OUR summary in a month or so. I think I understand what you were suggesting, there's no need for you to start getting

227:

One thing: Before I put my participation on hold and while mostly I must stop diving in now, there is one process I would like to finish or get more developed. I'll write up some of the notes I made about categorization schemes that I started on here -- maybe next week or this summer. The French

1240:

For future 1.0 processes, I'll check in from time to time: I remain very interested in 1.0, but not so much .5 and .8. at this time. I am specifically interested in what can be done to encourage expert humanities & scientific reviews of all articles. I am also interested in whatever other

1236:

I am moving for now to work on some things that I think are very important (which will actually serve the 1.0 project): collaborating in polishing the vital articles list and helping some how to improve some GA & FA articles and article review processes. I love publishing and collaborative

119:

that all a project needs is a group of very active users committed to a project. The project requires a "critical mass" for it to really take off, and that's what happened in the Cyclone project. The hurricanes last year caused significant interest, providing a set of knowledgeable editors that

1117:

by the way? How about putting an extra line in the AA blurb saying "if you find an article that is well-written, stable, accurate, referenced, and contains appropriately tagged images, then you can nominate it for good article status at WP:GAN?" I think you're right about the advantages of an

1052:

and then we will nominate all of those for GA. At 1.0 we are often trying to assess a dozen articles in an hour, and we are not experts on those article subjects (as with GA reviewers), so our assessments are therefore bound to be rather superficial. Offering these as GACs gives the A-Class

1386:

Hi there! Thanks for your note and advice. I'm emerging from an extended wikibreak of sorts, so I apologise for not having perused the cornucopia of information regarding this long-overdue initiative yet. In any event, I do believe that an outline/tree like such (or similar), perhaps with

1269:

Cool :) I wonder if the convoluted prose in my comment and the edit of option C has had any effect in slowing down voting. Sigh, too much attention to detail. Perhaps I should've left it the way it was. Since you are OK with the edit, do you mind tossing in an indented "I'm OK with that" or

355:

that you reverted was in fact correct. The lower case letters indicate aromaticity. But ChemDraw does not recognize aromaticity and renders its SMILES output as a series of alternating double and single bonds, so you get a SMILES that is not technically correct (or at least less precise).

217:

Thanks for the reply. We too have a young 'un to care for. And, though I do love and really care about participatory democratic media work (which is why I tend to dive in) and this project is wonderful -- I just have too much on plate. When time frees up in year or two, I hope I can help.

1241:

quality review processes come online. I will remain interested in adapting categorization sets as 1.0 gest closer. Oh, in time, I'll probably do some reviews of core topics society and social science articles. See you around in GA and perhaps Scientific PR and back here in awhile, --

259:

I think the navigation box is good and the logo is spiffy. I will try to work on replies about all the other points and questions. I'm having a little technical trouble. And you guys all apparently manage your time better than I do; you seem to be getting much more done.

395:

Hi, Martin. My home computer went on the fritz today, so I won't be able to show you the tree I had made. So don't wait up for me. But I am considering somehow organizing the current GAs, FAs, etc. into some type of tree. I might start with just the geography items.

940:

Hey, thanks for responding...I'm still not quite sure how I should start contributing to the project - i.e., are there particular articles I should work on, or are we selecting the articles we will work on, etc...all very exciting, any guidance is much appreciated.

371:

Thanks a lot for that- I did wonder if that was the case, I have never used SMILES in my life so I didn't know - but being an anon edit I was being rather careful (hence the Chemdraw check - my standard SMILES generator). If this is the case we will need to review

1419:

Yes: hi there; I'll soon be ramping up again in Wp. Forgive me for not replying to your prior post. I will take a crack at an alternate core topics tree, even though I like the outline Maurreen has proposed (if, for anything, just how it appears); give me a few

845:

Enjoyed your talk on Knowledge at ACS yesterday. Although I've contributed to Knowledge from time to time, I have to confess it's been mostly on topics of personal interest, and I haven't delved too much into chemical topics. Thanks for the overview!

770:

look and post you feedback. TheGrappler also did sterling work on categorisations within the sections which I think will make it much easier to find articles for viewing, and easier for editors to include and remove articles. The proposed version is

856:

Thanks! I think our chemistry coverage was weak, but it's now getting to the point where it can be a useful resource, and it should get much better. I like your list of errors on your talk page - I guess I gave you a couple more examples! Cheers,

765:

I apologise for not getting back to you regarding pooling ideas - I've not forgotten, I just was hoping to get something else finished first.. I noticed you commented on a version I worked on for the GA page. I'd really appreciate it if you take a

123:

The same thing needs to happen with the 1.0 project: there needs to be a small subset of users dedicated to it, but large enough for it to reach "critical mass". There is considerable interest in the project and Knowledge in general after the

1435:, but have yet to strike this. In any event, three users (including me) have expressed interest in participating. As such, both this wikiproject and expressed interest might be of benefit to the current topic. Thoughts? Thanks! 207:

Hi, I been too active. After reassessing a bit, I have decided I have too much to do this year to volunteer in Knowledge. So, I need to back out for awhile. Perhaps I can help in a year or two. Good luck with everything. Best wishes,

263:

Tangentially, about Wikiproject involvement, I had started to ask at various groups about their relevant core topics (hoping to encourage the groups to work on the core topics, or at least review them). But I got little response.

1320:

Martin: I spend a lot of time inputting content so I was very, very upset to have a serious edit wrecked by tawkerbot 2, accusing me of vandalism. Could you please explain to that group that I dont vandalize? Very upsetting and

1077:

I don't see any problem with these other things feeding into GA. I think GA was created to serve as a major clearing house for bringing together good articles. GA serves as a benchmark that is now pretty much accepted across

1465:

As well, I don't think it'll be problematic regarding maps. There are numerous Wikipedians who actively create these, including myself: upon requests (of sorts), I recently created detailed (and somewhat consistent) maps for

197:

page has changed a good bit today. It is yet more abstract at the top. So, it's applicability might not be directly obvious -- but I think this will help in organizing knowledge categories. Anyway, it'll settle for a bit now.

1025:

policy, but until it is official policy and established like FA/FAC it would be hard to make the change easily. I think your point about encouraging poor FACs is valid too. I think a system is developing for article -:

310:

Step 3 is the bulk of the work. All that happens before is to identify a list of articles to improve, and then to try to get the most opinions about those articles as possible, including outside Knowledge if possible.

460:

society & culture (which includes culture and social systems) -- if one or other term, I would suggest society as it is just a bit more inclusive than culture. but, two terms may be better for this and next

1251:

Yes, I'll make sure we agree on something and push forward. The revision is fine to me. We need people working to get things good for 1.0 now, so I'm glad you're involved with that, and I'll remind you that

830: 267:

Also, about the various levels, I had been working on a possible working draft type outline. I can't put it up yet, because of technical troubles. I hope to this weekend, if that works for the rest of you.

1232:

communication) per the last version mentioned on the core topics talk page. If you disagree, I don't know what the step to revise is. I leave that up to you and AtionSong and whomever. Revert I guess.

1072:

As for AA, I think we will probably be able to find equivalents, a 9 or a 10 is a definite A-Class, 6-8 is probably B-Class. Once we have those equivalents become more clear, we can then go AA -: -->

1049: 1048:(whose assessment scheme we use at WP1.0) became GAs when the GA idea was new. We regard the A-Class standard now as an automatic candidate for GA. We need to finish listing the A-Class articles 440:

above: I think having a few simple starting points can be good. I don't prefer her particular wording for category choices above -- the reasons for this are sort of immanent in the outlines below.

588:

In general, I would invite us to lean toward using phrases to describe basic 2, 3 and 4 category origin points -- it allows more to be accomplished. We can pick one or two world labels later.

281:

Hi, glad you like the idea of a geography focus. I am very gratified by your response. Also, btw, I didn't mean to imply that anyone was neglecting anything. Oh, and thanks for fixing my sig.

654:

is a good step to take now. I think this round of work on this may be nearing a constructive end point (feels so to me anyway). If you have time, please respond at the core topics page? Thx,

591:

Perhaps these efforts would benefit from generating more top level categories and choosing a few to develop further. What do you think? Generate more options? Pick options most attracted to?

1057: 697:

Seems I have been inadvertently multi-linking topic in articles I have edited (Noticed frim your corretions) and also some things in the tables I have forgotten to replace - My mistakes!

1085:

My initial idea was to produce a common navigation box template that could bring together all of the projects that are concerned with quality assessment and peer review, similar to the

1069:

GA. The inclusion of subject expertise should make these GAs from the WikiProjects much stronger (IMHO) than the "I found this as a random article and liked it" type of GA nomination.

1214:

bringing the Supreme Court cases to the level of quality necessary for inclusion into the 1.0 version - please let me know if there is anything I can do to assist you in that regard.

1118:

independent review at GA - it also helps keep the GA standards consistent, and serves as a "bonus" peer review, which can be helpful given the slow speed of WP:PR at the moment!

751:

I was going to say something else, which is why I held off this thanks but I've forgotten what I was going to say! Anyway, thanks and enjoy your much deserved semi-wikibreak. :)

603: 793: 505:

nature: time and space (that is, history and geography as subtopics, and not just social history) as subcategory & nature (contents of natural sciences) as subcategory

1033:

FA. I think as long as things are working that way, let's leave things as they are at the moment, at least until GA is official policy and people are used to it as such.

1306:, which you rated as A-class in February, has since become a featured article. Is there some process for new FAs having their status updated in the 1.0 project? Thanks, 997: 1041: 1060:

part of 1.0 has now contacted all of the WikiProjects, and we have probably "discovered" 100 or so A-Class articles from that so far. This allows WikiProject -: -->

1037: 112: 1139:, and I think we've had significant progress. However, WikiProjects are created every day, so we don't know if we've contacted all the active projects. However, 517:

Here are several more options that may be more in the direction of inclussiveness but perhaps are less useful for general reference in being yet more abstract:

1053:

articles a similar but independent second review. I think we will begin to see a lot more articles feeding in from WP 1.0 into GAC in the next few months.

444:

Here are some variants of possible first levels of subject trees. (This is off top of my head--need to reflect on if these are balanced and inclusive).

1231:

Thanks very much Martin for putting up those category set options. As you'll see on the 1.0 main talk page, I edited one category label (language--: -->

705:

Don't worry, I did exactly the same when I joined WP! Another thing, with major topics like water make sure you link to the appropriate page (such as

135:. There's at least several redundant pages that should be merged or eliminated to avoid duplicate effort, and to help new users browse the project. 739: 116: 1001: 244:

sucked in all over again! But please come back in a few weeks and check that we didn't get the wrong idea. Your family must always come first!

1063:

GA. From my perspective, though, the most exciting development has been the adoption by several groups of a worklist - see the list of these

1256:

could benefit from your expertise. I think the WP:VA is a great thing to work on and something I think we will be using for WP1.0. Thanks,

1332:

saw how you did the refs in NaSH, and I will adopt that format. With much admiration for one who has dipped his (gloved) hand into S2Cl2,

957:

the word, and I will revert them. BTW, you can see that we are about to undertake our final assault on stub-dom plus a few others gems.--

406: 518: 194: 180: 1402:

would be more effective in exhibiting the intended structure and hierarchy. Anyhow, let me know if you've questions. Thanks again!

1471: 1086: 996:

I know you have an interest in better co-ordination between GA, FAC, AA and 1.0. I wondered if you knew about the mechanism used on

1303: 1015:

I'm answering here to keep the thread going. Thanks a lot, I think the a lot of your ideas are excellent, here are my thoughts:

130:

review. At this point, I think several projects have made considerable progress, but the progress is lost in all the talk pages

1148: 1136: 607: 522: 1479: 1440: 1407: 97: 1467: 772: 300:. Sorry, but not much. To me, it seems more process than substance. Only Step 3 is about actually improving articles. 93: 89: 85: 81: 77: 73: 69: 65: 58: 38: 1111: 676:

what do you think about that? Oh, and, I might make it to Wikimania in August. So, I hope to see you there. --

1090: 115:

project, but lost track of it for a long time, so I'm not really useful there. However, I've found out through

1475: 1436: 1403: 1432: 1180: 877: 789: 179:

Hi Martin, Here is some more work in grouping core topic articles (from most general to more specific):

1349:

Sure, no problem. I had already seen your post, and was replying to it before I got distracted by the

1144: 351:

I'm not terribly familiar with SMILES, but I think that the modification to the SMILES structure of

297: 1357: 1155: 480:(perhaps this is closest to Maureen's outline above - but more description brings things together) 380:

etc that all use the same C=C type notation. I'll rv my rv and post something on WP:Chem. Thanks,

315: 152: 752: 743: 1064: 847: 361: 47: 17: 111:

Hello, Walkerma. I'm glad to see the 1.0 project moving. I had already signed up as part of the

1044:

were nominated for GA, and all but two became GAs. Meanwhile all of the A-Class articles from

508:

social (or inter-subjective) knowledge (social system/structures and culture as main subtopics)

1350: 824: 1174: 1119: 1006: 915:

Thanks for the note on CASREF in chemboxes. I will desist for now from adding any new ones.

871: 706: 632:

ve copied these options to a sandbox and added some more. A listing of all options is here:

139: 1433:

engaged in some discussion to initiate a 'hydrography' wikiproject (e.g., oceans and seas)

1282: 942: 931: 633: 1036:

At 1.0 we are definitely aware of this issue - we are likely to approve a change in our

1343: 1333: 1322: 1218: 1045: 958: 709:. Many of the links you've added have been helpful, and thank you for your hard work. 425: 1373: 1257: 1200: 1140: 1095: 982: 972: 916: 905: 858: 776: 710: 617: 429: 414: 410: 397: 381: 357: 335: 301: 282: 272: 245: 105: 271:

And thanks for asking, I expect to be around at least every other day for a while.

551:

Nature: objective world (and inter-objective world--ecology, natural systems, etc.)

1485: 1446: 1413: 1376: 1362: 1336: 1325: 1310: 1290: 1260: 1245: 1221: 1203: 1188: 1160: 1135:

I've gone through and updated the list of most science WikiProjects, most notably

1122: 1098: 1009: 985: 975: 961: 945: 934: 919: 908: 885: 861: 850: 800: 779: 755: 746: 732: 713: 680: 658: 639: 620: 595: 432: 417: 400: 384: 365: 338: 320: 304: 285: 275: 248: 232: 222: 212: 202: 187: 168: 157: 1273:

OK, I will look at Humanities sometime between now and August. I want to look at

742:

which passed 91/0/0. If you ever need anything, feel free to leave me a message!

1354: 1307: 1152: 610:". If Vir and Maurreen are OK with this strategy we can take it to Core Topics. 405: 377: 312: 165: 149: 46:

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

1253: 1278: 1215: 898:, so in a few days you may be able to watch the talk and judge for yourself! 567:: very abstract, sub-divided (4A topics subdivided into micro-macro topics) 334:

to get from A to B, which a roadmap should do. Thanks a lot to both of you,

1089:. I propose to make the box appear at the bottom of the page, rather like 486:

the universal atlas: maps of the earth and the universe, natural and social

1456:

Anyhow, I shall review, provide more feedback and recommendations shortly.

1287: 1242: 1199:

Martin, thanks much for your note. I sent you a couple pieces of e-mail.

797: 677: 655: 636: 592: 548:: abstract, adding inter-subjective world to 4A, very similar to 3 above 229: 219: 209: 199: 184: 794:

Knowledge:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_25#Template:Good_article

1274: 525:(actually binary at start). The basic cateogories at these pages are: 373: 352: 1040:

tables so as to tag all GAs as GAs. All of our A-Class articles from

1474:. Anyhow, please let me know if you've any questions. Thanks again! 834:. This article was selected as our collaboration. Hope you can help. 126: 585:

Feel free to edit and copy the above over to the core topics pages.

120:

expanded Knowledge's coverage and quality of cyclones tremendously.

1031:

FA, this provides an easier progression than the old poss PR -: -->

814: 792:

has been listed for deletion. Please vote to keep this template at

404: 971:

You're welcome. I'm glad you like it. Thanks fo ryour nice note.

831:

Knowledge:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF

981:

It was overdue. The project was in a coma until you came along.

476:: headings with practical-theoretical mixed categories subtitles 145:, but rather from my real-life nickname... good guess, though. 895: 25: 813: 731: 775:, and I've put an announcement on the talk page. Cheers 133: 131: 1074:

GA. I notice that some recent 9s from AA are now GAs.

1171:

way nice trips. I wish you a pleasant vacation :-).

511:

objective knowledge (science and tech as subtopics)

492:sciences: techno-scientific practices and sciences 1372:Hi, Martin, you might be interested in a at GA. 296:Hi, Martin, you asked what I think of Titoxd's 570:Nature, large scale physical and organic world 1094:be unaware of what related work is going on. 451:: mixed practical & disciplinary domains 8: 868:Hey, Martin! Please do tell: how did it go? 138:And finally, no, my name isn't derived from 1426:with related links? That would be helpful. 904:some new developments in the coming year. 489:society: socio-cultural life and studies 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 738:Thanks for your recent support on my 701:Ryan Jones 19:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 7: 1151:. What do you think about this one? 1107:Interesting thoughts! Have you seen 1147:for us, which can help us weed out 616:way, until we get WP 1.0 launched. 24: 61:. Other close archives include: 57:For other talk page archives see 1387:drill-down menus/arrows (CSS?): 1304:Australia at the Winter Olympics 428:might be useful or interesting. 29: 554:Society: inter-subjective world 608:the man on the Clapham omnibus 1: 117:WikiProject Tropical cyclones 1237:publishing projects, so... 573:Organismic-behavioral world 59:User talk:Walkerma/Archives 1504: 1414:05:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 1377:04:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 1363:05:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC) 1337:02:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC) 1326:01:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC) 1311:07:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC) 1291:02:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC) 1261:19:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC) 1246:19:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC) 1222:20:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 1204:17:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 1029:fix things, poss PR -: --> 909:05:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC) 886:21:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 862:20:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 851:18:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 801:10:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC) 780:16:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC) 756:02:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC) 747:05:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC) 714:20:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 659:17:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC) 640:15:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 621:04:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 596:23:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 532:: very abstract alternate 433:21:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC) 418:20:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC) 401:19:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC) 385:17:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 366:16:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 339:04:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 321:03:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 305:09:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC) 286:04:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 276:08:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC) 249:18:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC) 233:17:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC) 223:22:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 213:22:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 203:04:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC) 188:21:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC) 169:07:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC) 158:02:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC) 1227:1.0 process down the road 1189:15:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC) 1161:07:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC) 1123:13:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC) 1099:05:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC) 1082:someone at GAN is useful. 1021:people consider it to be 1010:20:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC) 986:06:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC) 976:04:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC) 962:03:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 946:05:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC) 935:23:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC) 920:21:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC) 681:23:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 409:For reviving and leading 1091:Template:Phenethylamines 728:Thanks Walkerma/Archive8 464:science & technology 1486:17:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 1447:22:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 1166:Your timezone is GMT-2? 822:You showed support for 1145:dynamic database query 896:entire morning's talks 818: 736: 557:Mind: subjective world 502:: abstract categories 420: 1149:inactive WikiProjects 1131:Work via WikiProjects 1058:Work via WikiProjects 817: 790:Template:Good article 785:Template:Good article 735: 408: 42:of past discussions. 1431:Moreover, I've been 1137:WikiProject Medicine 1061:WP1.0 A-Class -: --> 576:Socio-cultural world 391:1.0 trees and levels 1476:E Pluribus Anthony 1437:E Pluribus Anthony 1404:E Pluribus Anthony 1112:WikiProjcetGATasks 819: 737: 730: 421: 347:Toluene and SMILES 18:User talk:Walkerma 1382:RE: Knowledge 1.0 838: 837: 825:Amazon rainforest 726: 519:core topic levels 292:Thoughts on a map 195:Core topic levels 181:Core topic levels 175:Core Topic Levels 100: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 1495: 1360: 1187: 1158: 1116: 1110: 992:AA, GA, FAC, 1.0 884: 810: 809: 707:water (molecule) 634:core topic trees 604:core topics tree 538:subjective world 318: 155: 148: 64: 33: 32: 26: 1503: 1502: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1384: 1370: 1358: 1347: 1318: 1301: 1299:1.0 and new FAs 1283:Social sciences 1229: 1211: 1197: 1172: 1168: 1156: 1133: 1114: 1108: 994: 969: 954: 927: 869: 843: 808: 787: 763: 749: 724: 695: 535:objective world 523:core topic quad 393: 349: 316: 294: 257: 177: 153: 146: 143: 109: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1501: 1499: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1450: 1449: 1428: 1427: 1422: 1421: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1383: 1380: 1369: 1368:Quality levels 1366: 1346: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1317: 1314: 1300: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1271: 1264: 1263: 1228: 1225: 1210: 1207: 1196: 1193: 1167: 1164: 1132: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1102: 1101: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1070: 1054: 1034: 1017: 1016: 993: 990: 989: 988: 968: 965: 953: 950: 949: 948: 926: 923: 914: 912: 911: 900: 899: 890: 889: 865: 864: 842: 839: 836: 835: 820: 807: 804: 786: 783: 762: 759: 725: 723: 720: 718: 703: 702: 694: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 666: 665: 664: 663: 662: 661: 646: 645: 644: 643: 624: 623: 612: 611: 583: 582: 581: 580: 577: 574: 571: 561: 560: 559: 558: 555: 552: 542: 541: 540: 539: 536: 515: 514: 513: 512: 509: 506: 496: 495: 494: 493: 490: 487: 478: 477: 468: 467: 466: 465: 462: 458: 455: 442: 441: 436: 435: 392: 389: 388: 387: 348: 345: 344: 343: 342: 341: 293: 290: 289: 288: 256: 253: 252: 251: 241: 240: 239: 238: 237: 236: 235: 176: 173: 172: 171: 141: 108: 102: 56: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1500: 1487: 1483: 1482: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1448: 1444: 1443: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1429: 1424: 1423: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1411: 1410: 1405: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1381: 1379: 1378: 1375: 1367: 1365: 1364: 1361: 1356: 1353:bug. Thanks! 1352: 1345: 1342: 1338: 1335: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1324: 1321:discouraging. 1315: 1313: 1312: 1309: 1305: 1298: 1292: 1289: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1262: 1259: 1255: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1244: 1238: 1234: 1226: 1224: 1223: 1220: 1217: 1208: 1206: 1205: 1202: 1194: 1192: 1190: 1186: 1184: 1183: 1178: 1177: 1175:Wim van Dorst 1165: 1163: 1162: 1159: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1130: 1124: 1121: 1113: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1100: 1097: 1092: 1088: 1087:WP 1.0 navbox 1084: 1080: 1076: 1071: 1066: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1024: 1019: 1018: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1008: 1003: 999: 998:the Norwegian 991: 987: 984: 980: 979: 978: 977: 974: 966: 964: 963: 960: 951: 947: 944: 939: 938: 937: 936: 933: 924: 922: 921: 918: 910: 907: 902: 901: 897: 892: 891: 887: 883: 881: 880: 875: 874: 872:Wim van Dorst 867: 866: 863: 860: 855: 854: 853: 852: 849: 840: 833: 832: 827: 826: 821: 816: 812: 811: 805: 803: 802: 799: 795: 791: 784: 782: 781: 778: 774: 769: 760: 758: 757: 754: 748: 745: 741: 734: 729: 721: 719: 716: 715: 712: 708: 700: 699: 698: 692: 682: 679: 674: 673: 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 667: 660: 657: 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 642: 641: 638: 635: 628: 627: 626: 625: 622: 619: 614: 613: 609: 605: 600: 599: 598: 597: 594: 589: 586: 578: 575: 572: 569: 568: 566: 563: 562: 556: 553: 550: 549: 547: 544: 543: 537: 534: 533: 531: 528: 527: 526: 524: 520: 510: 507: 504: 503: 501: 498: 497: 491: 488: 485: 484: 483: 482: 481: 475: 472: 471: 470: 463: 459: 456: 453: 452: 450: 447: 446: 445: 438: 437: 434: 431: 427: 423: 422: 419: 416: 413:. Sincerely, 412: 407: 403: 402: 399: 390: 386: 383: 379: 375: 370: 369: 368: 367: 363: 359: 354: 346: 340: 337: 333: 329: 324: 323: 322: 319: 314: 309: 308: 307: 306: 303: 299: 291: 287: 284: 280: 279: 278: 277: 274: 269: 265: 261: 254: 250: 247: 242: 234: 231: 226: 225: 224: 221: 216: 215: 214: 211: 206: 205: 204: 201: 196: 192: 191: 190: 189: 186: 182: 174: 170: 167: 162: 161: 160: 159: 156: 151: 144: 136: 134: 132: 129: 128: 121: 118: 114: 107: 103: 101: 99: 95: 91: 87: 83: 79: 75: 71: 67: 62: 60: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 1480: 1441: 1408: 1401: 1385: 1371: 1348: 1319: 1302: 1239: 1235: 1230: 1212: 1198: 1181: 1176: 1173: 1169: 1134: 1022: 995: 970: 955: 928: 913: 878: 873: 870: 844: 829: 823: 788: 767: 764: 750: 727: 717: 704: 696: 693:My apologies 631: 590: 587: 584: 565:Alternate 4C 564: 546:Alternate 4B 545: 530:Alternate 4A 529: 516: 499: 479: 473: 469: 448: 443: 394: 350: 331: 327: 295: 270: 266: 262: 258: 178: 137: 125: 122: 110: 63: 55: 43: 37: 1120:TheGrappler 1042:Core Topics 1007:TheGrappler 1002:the Swedish 500:Alternate 3 474:Alternate 2 449:Alternate 1 378:naphthalene 255:Core topics 36:This is an 1316:Tawkerbot2 1254:Humanities 1078:Knowledge. 1073:GAC -: --> 1068:GAC -: --> 1062:GAC -: --> 1038:assessment 1032:FAC -: --> 1030:FAC -: --> 1027:GAC -: --> 930:from you! 426:basic tree 1351:watchlist 1334:Smokefoot 1323:Smokefoot 1279:Sociology 1270:whatever? 1028:GA -: --> 959:Smokefoot 952:CAS links 461:cateogry. 454:geography 98:Archive10 1374:Maurreen 1258:Walkerma 1201:Maurreen 1141:Interiot 1096:Walkerma 1023:de facto 983:Maurreen 973:Maurreen 967:Barnstar 917:Jaraalbe 906:Walkerma 859:Walkerma 806:1.0 COTF 777:SeanMack 711:Walkerma 618:Walkerma 430:Maurreen 415:Maurreen 398:Maurreen 382:Walkerma 362:Edgar181 336:Walkerma 328:specific 302:Maurreen 298:road map 283:Maurreen 273:Maurreen 246:Walkerma 193:PS. The 113:Wikisort 94:Archive9 90:Archive7 86:Archive6 82:Archive5 78:Archive4 74:Archive3 70:Archive2 66:Archive1 1344:WP:WVWP 1275:Society 1046:WP:Chem 753:Gflores 744:Gflores 457:history 374:benzene 353:toluene 39:archive 1472:Norway 1468:Canada 1308:Andjam 1209:SCOTUS 1143:ran a 925:WP 1.0 841:Thanks 722:My RFA 579:Humans 411:WP:1.0 330:ways, 166:Shanel 127:Nature 106:WP:1.0 104:About 1420:days. 1195:Break 848:Chuck 768:quick 761:Sorry 521:and 424:This 16:< 1481:talk 1470:and 1442:talk 1409:talk 1355:Tito 1281:and 1277:and 1219:Talk 1216:RidG 1182:Talk 1153:Tito 1065:here 1056:The 1050:here 1000:and 943:Paul 932:Paul 879:Talk 773:here 313:Tito 150:Tito 1288:Vir 1243:Vir 1026:--> 828:at 798:RJN 796:. — 740:RfA 678:Vir 656:Vir 637:Vir 593:Vir 332:how 230:Vir 220:Vir 210:Vir 200:Vir 185:Vir 140:TiO 1484:| 1478:| 1445:| 1439:| 1412:| 1406:| 1359:xd 1191:. 1157:xd 1115:}} 1109:{{ 376:, 364:) 358:Ed 356:-- 317:xd 154:xd 147::) 96:— 92:— 88:— 84:— 80:— 76:— 72:— 68:— 1185:) 1179:( 888:. 882:) 876:( 360:( 142:2 50:.

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

Index