Knowledge talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via WikiProjects

3796:(1) To help in at least tagging articles, perhaps we could set up a system whereby every project would be asked to just tag the individual categories which they believe to be relevant to their project, and then have all the bots we can corral into the effort to place the relevant banners on the articles in those categories. Not all categories will necessarily be covered by this effort, but I think most would be. Also, for categories which relate to several projects in part, those categories wouldn't receive automatic tagging for all the possibly related articles if the banners weren't placed there. By having all the articles tagged for as many projects at once, it would also greatly speed the assessment process, as only one person would have to assess each article, as opposed to having each project assess it individually as the banner is placed. If, of course, individual projects wish to have assessments done only by members of that project, I think (?) it might not be too hard to add a parameter to the banner to indiciate as much. 3802:(3) Finally, the part that might be relevant to this project. I note that many projects do not yet specifically indicate on the project page which articles have been selected or are candidates for selection in release editions. So far as I can tell, it might be a fairly simple process (if I'm wrong, let me know) to have a separate bot automatically update a page for each project, which would list for that project the featured articles, pictures, lists, topics, sounds, GAs, and DYKs which have been tagged for that project, to help ensure that that content be included in articles included in the 1.0 release. Portal maintainers would love to have such automatic updating I think in particular. Also, we could add to that possible subpage a listing of the articles which have been included or nominated for inclusion in release versions. By doing so, we might have a better chance of getting some of the relevant projects to concentrate a bit more attention on some of the weaker included articles. 3799:(2) At roughly the same time that the bot tagging spree starts, a separate list of newly created articles could be created. When the assessment spree is finished, the newly created articles would be the only ones which would possibly receive similar automatic banner placement, based on categorization, possibly on a regular basis (once a week, perhaps). This would also make it much easier for projects to keep up with new relevant articles. After the tagging spree is over, however, the projects which were involved in that effort would not receive the same total review and banner placement, but would only have banners placed on new articles by the bot like any other. New projects which had not yet received such automated assistance could request banner placement for them separately at request. 3942:

interested in refining the system, let me know. There are ways to improve the assessment system. Like anything worth doing, they involve some work. It seems these some emphasis is being place on these ratings. While I do not have any problem with them being used heuristically, as an expert in the area, I have strong (but constructive) criticism regarding them being used to make important determinations. I have not had a great deal of time to edit lately, and am not sure exactly what they are being used for. I do know, however, that ratings tend to get treated by many as a lot more precise and valid than they actually are. I have suggested elswhere ways of doing ratings more rigorously. If anyone is interested, I'll tell you more. Cheers

1107:

admired what they have achieved at de, I'm getting less envious of de every day - we have an open source GPL offline reader (de's is proprietary), and we have a quarter million assessed articles (de has none!). I'm hopeful that once the Version 0.5 CD comes out (we're already planning the publicity) we will get some new blood in the 1.0 projects - and maybe others like David will get involved again. As for telephone, Skype & IRC, I like these sorts of things for brainstorming - everyone is there together, and you can be open & frank about the situation knowing that stupid things you say are not on the Web (unlike here). Still, we can certainly bounce ideas round here a lot as well.

3067:←With all the different layers of musical instruments to consider, instead of having task forces for each country's (or continent's) musical instruments, and with all the different genres to consider with specialized instrumentation (a classical guitar is appreciably different from a country guitar), we felt it would just be easier on the project to layer this information in with the importance scheme - except we needed another layer or two. That's why we started the "normal" class, and are actually using the "no" class as a layer also (as opposed to "unassessed"). I really hope, Steve, that it won't cause too much confusion for the 'udder' bots (even if the tags are remooo-veable) 4036:

poorly written sentences to exceptional articles on Knowledge. To cut this up into seven classifications is fine, just as long as you keep in mind they must be big buckets; i.e. each represents a large range of quality. It will often be easy to say something is right in the middle of the GA classification when it is. The problem is when someone is tossing up between GA and A, it becomes more difficult. My advice would be that if this is important, do two things (i) select a set of possible exemplar articles in the range (already rated) (ii) have more than one rater go through a process of

3851:, for each assessing project which could list the FAs, FFAs, GAs, DGAs, Featured Lists, Featured Sounds, and 1.0 Editorial Team nominees and selections? That was the objective of the proposal above. Particularly informing the projects of the 1.0 selections struck me as valuable. Also, potentially, it might be possible to create another list which would automatically remove from it any FAs, etc., which have already been selection for inclusion in a release version, possibly making some of the work of the 1.0 team easier. 814:

this council). We did a lot of assessments for projects that were new to the concept - Doctor Who, Adelaide, all sorts - just to help them get started. Once they had some examples of assessment of their own articles, they were able afterwards to perform their own assessments and start using the bot. Tagging articles that fell outside the jurisdiction of any active project was less relevant when we only had 50 projects using the bot; it is an excellent idea, and it is a natural evolution for WVWP to work on this.

2833:. He had told me he would be testing it last weekend, but I haven't heard anything as yet - he mentioned that he needs the Toolserver to be upgraded, supposedly happening soon. I think it's also a very complicated piece of code to write, so it may take him a few weeks. He plans to do testing over the next couple of months, then once some important exams are over in June he should be able to devote a lot of time to it. In the meantime we need to keep reviewing and nominating manually, I think. 4058:

easily be generalized to allow ratings in relation to separate criteria. However, this would involve a lot of work and I doubt it is realistic. That said, it doesn't need to be one or the other. You could have a more elaborated scheme broken down into criteria, with exemplars for each criterion, that works with the main system -- used for difficult-to-assess or disputed assessments but not otherwise. This would take some work to set up and use, I just mention it for the sake of completeness.

1342:"no. 2 in a series". I put it at the top so that people would be aware that it's now available, but perhaps the time to advertise it is over. Another thing, I'm going to completely rewrite the description of the project (see "New direction..." above), so things on the page will change a lot soon anyway. The current text is out of date. As for the statistics page being "your fault", I really appreciate that information, the project is gearing up to automate the use of it. Thanks, 798:), to allow us to get much larger collection (V0.5 was only 2000 articles). One ongoing concern with the automated system is that there may be gaps in our selection, if we don't have projects representing that subject area. For example, we have about 2000 Pennsylvania articles (1000 assessed) to pick from, but no Maryland articles. This can affect even broader subject areas - we have Dance and Film covered, but many fine arts like painting and sculpture are not (I think!). 4571: 3792:

projects do not do a very good job of keeping up with GAs, FAs, and Release Version selections, which doesn't help either. On the basis of all of the above, I was wondering what the rest of you might think of a proposal like this. Feel free to offer any adjustments if certain provisions are to blatantly impossible. Many of these provisions involve subjects I know nothing whatsoever about, so I expect to be told some things aren't workable.

4078:

assessment and measurement, it tends to be the case that people avoid some up front work that would save a lot of time in the long run. It took centuries of developments, theoretical and technical, to produce thermometers that we can just buy from a pharmacy and use with incredible precision. Don't lose sight of the up-front work it takes to make measurement easy yet precise. If there's the will, there are many ways. Regards.

805:(Work via WikiProjects), which was very active (indeed WVWP + Oleg set up the bot assessment scheme), but which has lain dormant since the fall because of people's commitments elsewhere (e.g. to Version 0.5). People have also become less interested in contacting WikiProjects now that the projects are coming to us at the rate of about one per day! It is clear that the focus of WVWP should shift from trying to contact 1755:. I simply downloaded it, clicked a couple of times, and found myself online. You see a list of the people who are logged in, and you type text into a box - when you hit enter it appears in everyone's screen as part of the discussion. IRC is widely used when Wikipedians want to have a virtual meeting. I'll give the IRC channel in the description below. I've already contacted a few people who may be interested. 38: 2651:). I think only a tiny handful of the WP:SPORTS "child" projects have assessment depts., and this is true of many other overarching WPPs' "children", so this might be emminently useful when I'm done with it. However (to get back to the point) it could complicate the entire concept of "WikiProjects doing assessments", depending upon what the goals of such a catalogue are. If the goal is to ID WPPs that 856:

the project has already existed for some time, and is well known, will greatly help us. Another deciding factor is that WVWP is on the verge (i.e. may do in a year or two, seems fine for now) of going inactive, which would be a great shame as it was a highly successful Knowledge group, whereas this would keep the old project going, just under a new direction in adition to it's present duties.

3359:

MartinBotII operating - but I'll make sure I raise this idea when emailing or posting in the next few weeks. It's also quite possible that MartinBotII could be easily adapted to do this if PockBot can't. Till then we should perhaps help the songs or albums people? Thanks for all your sterling work, and I also saw your valiant efforts in talking to Bus Stop about Bob Dylan! Cheers,

3206:, still has a staggering number of articles unassessed. Other large projects, probably including the likes of Military history, probably have similar problems. If we were going to do any sort of other assessments, I would think that those two projects would probably be the best place to start for the possibility of reducing the backlog of unassessed/tagged articles. Thoughts? 3972:

the prose, and style issues. The reason for continuing to have both A and GA levels is a reflection the two different variables: A-Class represents the project's view that the content is complete and accurate, whereas GA indicates that an expert reviewer considers the presentation of that content is of a high standard. A GA reviewer cannot judge whether an article on

1103:, which are other lists of important articles (about 400 from the two, some of which overlap with VA) - these should all have been assessed, but the assessments may be out of date, and we may identify gaps there too. Another fruitful source of articles could be this project - we could go through the manually-generated tables and add bot-readable tags to them. 3968:, so people have already invested MANY hours of their time in the present system. Thus it's unrealistic to say, "OK, from next month we'll switch to a three-variable 10 point scale and the old assessments will no longer work." It is realistic to say, "OK, we have a new tool that will help make your assessing more reliable and reproducible". 4065:, I'll take a look when I have time. You're up against a pretty big challenge there. I understand all to well the reasons people want "objective" data for such systems. Three points. First, you're often faced with a choice between rather indirect and/or impoverished objective data versus "subjective" data. Second point, subjective is not 1445:

article selection at WP:1.0), you can go back into the history of the main worklist to dig out the information. One compromise many projects use is to agree (by discussion) on a small set - perhaps 5-10 in a project like yours - of Top-Priority articles, and only tag these - that is usually less controversial than the levels below Top.

4017:, and we are presently adjusting the balance between the projects which assess for importance and those which don't. I'm also locating a reference point for each project, to allow us to adjust for importance of project area (e.g., Arizona vs Arizona road transportation). Many thanks, I really appreciate your offer! Please help! 2685:(2) to know how far along the assessment unit is. I acknowledge that some of the smaller projects might not have sufficient content to set up their own assessment departments, but that's not the point at least to me. I do hope that someone else with more experience adds comments for the Editorial Team as a whole, though. 2309:. However, I'm a little concerned that the template is pretty much undocumented. There's nothing explaining what the orphan, VA, core and coresup parameters are for, and even other stuff is only documented in the templates being replaced. Many users would also ask what is the different between pass and held. Etc. — 3958:

something so crude - I think its very simplicity has made it easy for thousands of different people to apply it in many different situations. But the system does clearly have major limitations, and of course you're right that it can get treated as more precise than it is. If we can make it better, we should!

4057:

Clearly, the scheme doesn't allow something to be rated higher with respect to certain criteria and lower with respect to others, and there's a risk in this kind of format that the rating reflects the worst aspect -- I can elaborate on the reasons if you like. The set-out and logic of your system can

4031:

Hey Martin. I've just had another look at the grading sheme. What you have is a relatively crude system of classifying articles into ordered categories of quality, based on a global judgement. For this purpose, it is actually a really strong design in my view. From research I've been involved in, the

3875:

I am trying to kickstart a somewhat new/became dead WikiProject. It seems like after its creation, no one knew about it and the list of proposed members dwindled into a couple people. Anyways, I've set up project banners, sidebars, and now I'm trying to get this whole assessment deal squared away.

3805:

Anyway, I know that there are probably several places in this proposal where I've made assumptions which make it virtually impossible to enact, particularly regarding bot involvement. But, if it were possible, it would address some of the problems we have regarding assessment and attention to release

3481:

I want to ask about assessment rating. I know that any article can move up to GA or FA status regardless of their previous ratings as long as they meet the criteria. When a GA article is downgraded, it's pretty obvious that this article belongs to B class. However, when a FA article downgrades, which

2646:

is too small to support its own assessment dept. I'm actually working (slowly) on a WPP "mega-template" that could kind of revolutionize the WPP assessment concept: it would be a single talk page header, for WP:CUE (or whatever project, in the generic version) that handled assessment parameters from

1523:

If we were to create a template, I have seen various 0.5 and 2006 CD article templates on several of these pages already. Might it be possible to create one standard Version 1.0 Editorial Team banner which might be able to function for the entire group? Maybe add criteria for which release if any the

1423:

The importance rating has cause enough controversy and is not being used to its full potential in the Aircraft project. What would be the easiest way of removing this part from our assessment profile. Can we just delete the related categories and remove the code from the project banner? What will the

1199:

I don't know of a specific project to do this, but I know in chemistry the chemistry wikiproject tends to clean up categories and discuss changes. Some things are easier to categorise than others, though. I'd try raising the issue at WP:Saints and/or WP:Catholicism first. By all means ask again for

539:, and that's great, but a great number of articles are not currently tagged by projects which assess for this, and may never be. Therefore, the purpose of this project would be to tag and assess articles not currently covered by an assessing project, for the purposes of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. 3957:

Yes, I am definitely very interested in trying to make the assessment system better. I was the one who advocated the use of the current system for WP1.0, because at the time the entire project was hamstrung by the complete absence of assessments. The present system (IMHO) works remarkably well for

3304:

has around 23,000 articles (most untagged), of which perhaps 18,000 are not covered by WP:Chemicals. With only 1000 assessed, that leaves about 17k to be done. Being a chemist and project member, I want to focus my energy on that 17k. I suspect there may be some other broad subjects like chemistry

2611:

for a list of all the projects currently engaged in assessments. I would try to add them to the lists here, but find that the fact that they aren't the same as the layout of the project Directory makes it harder for me to figure out where they go. The projects in alphabetical order are the ones that

2345:

Thanks for the template, and for the examples we can look at. I notice that the WPCD categories are not showing up at all- shouldn't we see those? Also, on Albinism I see that 1.0 categories are being generated, but we don't have a 1.0 release yet, so these are all redlinked. Could you remove the

1533:

That's a very good idea. We'll need to get various people to agree with that. This will be much easier to do once the CDs are released - both are due to come out in the same week (the last week of March). I'd say we should plan and write something now, but hold off implementing it until after the

1179:

to mark articles as being checked. Please feel free to make a start, and to adapt it as you see fit. Meanwhile I will (a) try to rustle up some help - once a few articles have been checked (to show people how it's done) - and (b) I'll get rewriting the main WVWP page to reflect our new "mission."

4488:

Wikipedians to assess article quality improvement. We are testing the metric for consistency and to see if there are differences between Wikipedian scores and subject matter expert scores. We are looking to identify the strengths and weakness of the current assessment system since we are using that

4229:

Can anybody help on how to ask for a re-assessment? Reactive attachment disorder (a DSM and ICD-10 classification) was assessed as mid-importance and Attachment disorder (a vague term) was assessed as high. This really ought to be the other way round. Its not particularly important but I can't work

3971:

There are two main variables involved, content and presentation, but these are in effect rolled into one. In the early development of an article, content is desperately needed, and this is the main focus of the assessment. As the article becomes fairly complete, we worry more about the quality of

1341:

I will move the navigation template to the bottom, if you think that looks better. For a long time people have complained that they couldn't find their way around the maze of 1.0 pages. I am slowly writing templates for all the 1.0 projects, as a way of dealing with that, and the WVWP template is

855:

I think that sounds brilliant, probably by far the best way to do this. I too favour your former idea, much better to run as part of the project then to become a seperate one in our own right; it will probably get off the ground quicker that way, and gain more contributers, too. Also, the fact that

435:

I have just set up an assessment department for our project. It appears the bot has already picked up on it. I think it's about time we joined in, but it's just that there is a lot of fandom in our area, which makes it hard to get the right people together at times :D I was just wondering where all

3884:

the bot]] for Robotics already, but I don't know how to view the results yet (part of it might also be I don't know how to seek out all of the robotics articles and then assess all of them, and then get it on that table). If I can get some pointers as to how I could do all of that, I'd appreciate

3791:

Sit down; this one'll take awhile. As noted above, we currently have roughly 60% of all articles tagged. Less than that total number have yet to be assessed, however. Also, some projects which have assessment capacity haven't yet assessed many articles. This can't really help that much. Also, many

3320:

Is there any way to get an automatically created list of the number of unassessed articles the various projects have made? Given the number of projects engaged in assessments, and the changes which are no doubt made every day, it's probably the only way to know which projects are in most and least

3201:

The VA articles have now all been tagged. Not all of them have directly obvious associated projects, but I have proposed projects when it seemed to me that there was sufficient volume of content to do so. I guess this leaves us somewhat up in the air. If I might propose a possibility, probably the

2357:

Re: 0.5: I'm not sure hiding failure is good. Highlighting it is fairly likely to generated fix-it editing action, esp. since it implies that unless fixed it will also fail 0.7 and 1.0. Cf. failed GA and failed FA templates. Maybe its just me, but it seems that they generate a certain amount of

2279:

Kirill already checked it, and added the collapsing feature, so that is done. Small=yes would be nice, but that I don't know how to do... however, checking the wording, checking the links within the template, and checking the category structure (meaning, did I forget to add an important category?)

1242:

Thanks for the info. Actually, I already used it for some VA tagging. It really makes things much faster, doesn't it! When I get time to update the main WVWP page, I will recommend we use this tool. He's actually upgraded it to allow you to edit assessments without opening the talk page, but I

832:

I strongly favor the former, mainly because I think we don't want to multiply groups when we may only have a couple of active people in each! Also, despite our inactivity in recent months, there are still occasional edits to our manually listed tables and questions on our talk page. About a year

813:

projects. Traditionally (i.e., last year!) many of these functions you describe have fallen to WVWP - we have recorded information manually from projects that are not using the bot, we have helped projects get started with the bot, and sometimes just given general guidance (the role now played by

4035:

Following from this, the single simplest thing to add precision without changing anything is to add exemplars to more sharply define the borders or thresholds of the classifications. The classifications are big buckets with these kinds of schemes. There is an enormous range of quality, from a few

3446:

Sorry I missed this post coming in. From what I understand, the bot generates the name of the project automatically from the category name. Since the category is called "Cypriot articles by quality" it generates the project name as WikiProject:Cypriot. I was involved a little in setting up the

3172:

and transclude it to wherever you wish. To have the chart populated, however, you would have to create the assessment categories to be displayed on the chart. If you would like to contact me personally regarding the specifics of which project you are referring to, I could probably help set up the

3009:

has been set up for both quality and importance (with a LOT of willing plagarism from the WPMILHIST project and Kirill). Which raises a few questions: we are not using the standard "class=" in the template, we are using a "quality=" option. Will this wreak havoc on the toolserver (our test says

1883:

I should say that it apears I will no longer be able to make it - my computer is getting nothing but 404 errors from Freenode, and I don't think it's a problem their end, as previous attempts have had a similar result. My computer just doesn't like it. :-(. All I can do is ask that someone drop a

1130:

One important thing to do there is to check whether the untagged articles already have an associated WikiProject that isn't doing assessments yet; there are still quite a large number of such, and prodding them into doing their own assessment will get a lot more articles into the system than just

1090:

OK, how should we start this? In other words, how can we best identify articles that are (a) not assessed yet and (b) worth spending time on? Many projects have articles related to their fields that are not even tagged simply because they are relatively obscure topics. I don't want us to waste

988:

recently, copied above, that there should be a project which works on article assessment in subject areas where there are no formal WikiProjects. In addition, it could help set up new projects with templates and assessments. Since many of these tasks are already informally done here at WVWP, it

471:

and the "Resources" there. I will also be writing up a guide to the 1.0 pages once V0,5 comes out. Looking at your project, it looks as if you still need to tag some article talk pages with assessments, so you can see things appear. When you do that, check for capital/lowercase letters and make

4069:

synonymous with inconsistent. Third point, the two are not mutually exclusive -- hits and so forth can be used to filter/classify and people can also rate importance on substantive grounds. Again, I'd highly recommend (human) pairwise comparisons to sort things in order of importance. Lastly, on

1444:

I think if you just delete the importance part of the template, this will remove all of the importance assessments at a stroke. The table should (I think!) start to show all of these as unassessed for importance. If you ever decide to revisit this (because we are starting to use importance for

1408:

Hi, I've just ran your bot three times and hundreds of articles seem to be missing. As you can already tell, there are several of child projects (Formula One, A1 GP etc.). Are the child projects included in the motorsport bot. The project members go round editing all parts of motorsport. Can you

1288:

Looks like you have everything set up perfectly! You should see MathBot pick it up during the next 24 hours, and things should settle down after 48 hours or so. You can run MathBot manually through the project if you're really impatient. Thanks for using the bot. BTW, speaking personally as a

1106:

Thanks for the comments (further above) & suggestion Tito. I've tried pestering David in the past, since he was one of the early active people at 1.0, he ignored all of my posts for some reason - but I'll contact him again. Interesting that he links to the 1.0 page. Although I have always

586:

Great idea. Questions come to mind, however. Specifically, would this group basically set up other projects which are not yet doing assessments, and do the assessments for them, or would it have it's own banner and include assessment criteria there? Personally, I would favor the former. If so, I

4454:

I noticed that several wikiprojects put assessment tags on redirect pages. Does 1.0 have any official opinion on this? Doing so has some organizational benifits, but it also greatly inflates the class=NA category and gives a lot of extra work to the bot, so I was wondering whether the people

3822:

Some WikiProjects have banners but don't have any assessment code within those banners. In other words, the talk pages are tagged but this project doesn't know anything about them. The best way to address that issue would be to discover which Projects aren't taking part and re-invite them (or,

3358:

I'm not taking on any major new tasks until exams are over (about two weeks from now), then I'll see if PockBot will work. If that fails, I have a collection of "this would be nice" things which I raise in discussions periodically. My priority right now is trying to get Version 0.7 active and

3348:

Albums does have about 30K unassessed articles (yeah, I balked at that too) so they obviously do need a lot of work. If there would be any way to get the bot to just create a page listing the unassessed-articles by project (and maybe by importance?) that might help a lot when and if the albums

2813:

I have been inactive in this project for a while. I am coming back to work on the release version, but what happened to Martinbot? The assessments were originally going to start in January, but nothing has happened. Has British Telecom fixed his internet connection yet? Also, we might want to

2218:{{WP1.0 | class = (as usual) | comments = (as usual) | orphan = yes / no | VA = yes / no | core = yes / no | coresup = yes / no | category = same as v0.5 | v0.5 = nom (throws an error) / pass / held / fail | v0.7 = nom / pass / held / fail | v1.0 = nom / pass / held / fail | WPCD = yes / no }} 2021:

I'm hopeless at these fancy templates, but I know that often they don't show the importance unless the parameter is entered. Make sure you look at an example that has importance=some valid parameter. If that doesn't work, let's hope Kirill Loshkin, Kingboyk or other template expert can help.

1189:

I noticed the number of banners without assessments in several of the saints articles, and came here. I think a big part of the problem with getting articles tagged with the relevant banners is the fact that many of the categories are, well, a mess. Articles that at best marginally relate to a

4077:

Anyhow, please treat these as an opening few points and ask questions if needed -- there are many options with these things, it's possible to use some key principles in a smart way to get flexibility without too much compromise. If there is a single point I would stress above all others -- in

1690:

I have just compiled a list of all the nominal Projects out there, and will be forwarding a list of those engaged in assessment not already listed here as doing so comparatively shortly. One question, though. At least a few projects place all their articles in a single "unassessed" class. I'm

3941:

Hi all. It is commndable to see efforts to rate articles with the aim of improving quality. The system being adopted is no doubt helping as a fairly crude classification system. Without collecting and analysing any rating data, it's difficult to say how effective the process is. If anyone is

3169: 4032:

written descriptions of criteria are not nearly so powerful as the exemplars. (It's all very well describing in words what you should see, but what does all of that actually look like in an actual article?). The fact you have examples of every category/classification is a enormous advantage.

4053:

of the next classification up. This would give a lot more precision to the classification system, exactly as it is. Putting extra time in, up front, to establish a good, consistently rated set of exemplars can save enormous amounts of time for the many people out there struggling to rate,

1140:

I would agree, the best place to start would be those lists, followed by manually identifying some important categories and running Pockbot through them (if indeed it can be modified to do so, but even I, with no knowledge of scripts at all, am reasonably confident it can be done easily).

3600:

I am running the bot though are brand new wikiproject. it seems like the bot is unable to create an "&" symbol. it creates a page called "Knowledge:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Texas A" I was wondering if you guys could take a look at our wikiproject to see what we are doing wrong.

989:

made sense to combine the work here. This will mean a big change in what we do here (or haven't been doing, recently!). I will be busy trying to write a site map for 1.0 in the next few days, when finished that may help us see what needs to be done. What do folks think about this?

1498:

I've started going through some of the articles on the VA tagging list to ensure that the relevant projects have their banners on the talk pages. I would add the WVWP tag someone mentioned on the main page here, but I don't know what it is. Can anyone help me in this regard? Thanx.

3580:

Hi, I thought that I hade dropped entries to the appropriate categories to get the bot to operate last night. Though the categories were later modified by another user. Wondered if there was something I was missing from the instructions that would cause bot not to operate on them.

4419: 3496:

A-Class is basically, "Just needs a bit of work to be FA". So if the FA failed because of something fairly minor, and it could reasonably be renominated in a month or so, then it is probably A. If it failed for a whole bunch of reasons, and needs a lot of work, then it's B.

952:

Unfortunately, I'm having some major connection problems on my house, as my ISP decided to knock down a wire when they went to repair it, so I don't know how long it will take to fix that. Ideally, talk pages were designed for these kinds of things... we should still use them.

3287:

Those projects sum up to 194 thousand unassessed articles. There are roughly 300K WikiProject articles unassessed, so there still remain about 106K in the remaining wikiprojects, most of which contain less than 5K unassessed articles. Can someone double check this for me?

2824:

Welcome back Eyu100! Martin was inactive for a very long time because of the BT connection, or lack thereof. We chatted on the phone last month. He now has a Toolserver account and is setting things up on there. You can see a lot of the developments during your absence

1032:

Yes, we could certainly do that - though at the moment there are only a handful of active people here (I sense that in Eyu100's comment). Having said that, if we start some serious & productive activity, people will join us to help - that is the way Knowledge works.

3976:

has enough content to be "complete", but a consensus at the Chemicals Wikiproject is much more able to judge this. I accept that this "two-variable" description is itself a simplification, but it gets much closer to the truth than a simple one dimensional assessment of

4265:

The project page says "People conducting assessments are encouraged to use/evaluate Outriggr's tool (currently being beta tested).". The problem is that Outrigger has recently had the script deleted is there an alternative tool that can be used to perform assessments?

4013:; we are currently working with "Score7". You will probably cringe at much of the discussion, which is very subjective, but I have also looked at the mathematical balance of parameters and Score7 looks to have things pretty well balanced, IMHO. Our initial output is 1714:

Could we have an IRC meeting about how to proceed with this project? Several people are interested in helping, we just need to get everyone working in the same direction. There are also some very knowledgable people and/or bots we could bring in to help us. Thanks,

3994:, which are selected based on both importance and quality). However, anything that can make the system more reliable, without it becoming unduly burdensome, would be extremely valuable. I think such things could be done, using things like rubrics (perhaps like the 1609: 1095:, this is a list of the top 1000 or so, and make sure these have all been assessed. Any one of these 1000 could be major enough to be its own WikiProject, so if we find any major gaps we could try and muster up interest in starting one. We might do the same with 3238:

Thanks for your work on this, John, we've now covered the top 1000 or so. I'd like to use the VA tagging page now for review as part of the Version 0.7 project (all VAs are were automatically nominated). Does anyone mind if I use that page for V0.7 now? Thanks,

512:. I'm curious as to whether the rest of you think that this would be a good idea or not, and, if so, exactly what the formal arrangement should be. Should it be a WikiProject, a task force of some other project, or maybe something else? All responses are welcome. 4383: 1724:

It's a list of all the projects doing assessments, although there don't yet seem to be any inactive projects that do assessments. I have no objections to the IRC meeting, although I admit I have myself never used it so I'm not really sure how to proceed.

679:

or similar to indicate that the work had been done by the project. I small three or four line ad, as it were. Also, some projects explicitly say only project members can assess articles, and they might want to know why outsiders assessed the articles for

1621: 4040:

betwen the articles, including the examples already listed. This data can be analysed for internal consistency and anomalous articles (not consistently rated) can be identified. It doesn't, by the way, matter how you assess, pairwise comparisons will

3515:

The only way GA status can be revoked is by going through GAR, just as with FA/FAR. So it would be at least GA. I've sometimes tagged such things as A-Class, if I've thought the FAR was a close call; nearly all GAs these days would also be A-Class.

1788:

to see what we're planning. I will be away in Chicago (& busy during daytime Chicago time) from 24th-29th March. What dates & times (specify time zone) would be good for people who are interested? Weekends work well for me, during evenings

2464:

All right, I'm now fairly confident that the thing works the way it is supposed to be. The only that hasn't been enabled is the Orphans listing, but that is extremely simple to do. Here's the templates and categories that can be safely deprecated:

2171:

The template can replace all of the v0.5 templates; the built-in functionality should do it transparently. However, I'd like someone to double-check the category structure I put in the template, as I'm not sure whether I missed something or not.

1326:(the latter is my fault). It would be nice if the page were made more readable. I tried to reorganize things myself but I could not make it look good (and I don't know what's important and what should be on top). Anybody willing to work on this? 845:, which is (in effect) "All the Arts article assessments that come from projects not using the bot". It can be a lot of work, but in fact a couple of us were able to achieve a great deal when it was a major focus for us. What do others think? 2926:

MartinP has let me know that he has been unable to do the tests because the toolserver has kept crashing. That was giving headaches for WP 1.0 Bot and Oleg too, that's why Oleg switched back to his own server. He's been told that the problems

1617: 3829:

It ought then to be possible to get a list of all articles this project doesn't know about (i.e. a list of all articles minus known), and stick a generic assessment template onto their talk pages. No need for category trawls I would have

3394:

to update the list, since Music venues is one of the few projects to have a May 7 log entry! Checking the index, it looks as if the letter A projects were updated on May 6, but many lists have not been updated since May 2. However the

674:

I was thinking of something like the existing automatic stub template, possibly with even similar wording. Or maybe a similar addition to existing banners along the same lines as that. Or maybe a small one similar to those used by the

2710:

uses the same set of categories as WP1.0. I'm very busy at the moment - tonight was pretty much a one-off - but I'll try to work on this some more when I can. At least I got the main WVWP page done.... (please edit as you see fit).

2346:

V1.0 references until we reach that point? As for v0.5=fail not doing anything, does it need to? I don't know that we want to advertise too loudly the fact that an article failed V0.5 - unless there is a reason we need to? Thanks,

4536: 4502: 4532: 3339:? I'm not sure. The alternative would just be to go clicking through A-Z till we found one that needed a lot of work - I suspect we'd probably get no further than WP:Adelaide... I'll try & help with this over the weekend. 1203:

Regarding the rewrite of this page and the start of VA tagging, I will start on that once Version 0.5 is completed - hopefully very soon. I'm wading through pages and pages of script output at the moment, cleaning up articles!

1091:

time on those because they should get covered eventually by the relevant project, and anyway they're not that important. We need to find the important articles that haven't been assessed yet. I'd like to suggest we start with

4188: 3120:

Actually, in this case it wasn't my creation, so I only tried to cobble together what already existed. Not a good excuse, I know, but people who have a habit of making the same mistake over and over and over again (like, well,

1635:

I think the amphersand is most likely the problem - if I recall correctly, the bot has had problems in the past with unusual characters in project names. If that doesn't solve the problem, the best place to raise the issue is

3749:

No, I think Oleg was strict about not double counting any article. This is a standard problem - the difference is caused by FLs listed as FA-Class, I believe. If you take a look at the list I think that should confirm that.

1624:

links aren't showing on the main page here either. How might they be fixed? Would changing the category names from the ampersand to the word "and" work? That'd be an easy fix, if so. Please to advise, thank you very much. :)

1544: 1509:

I think we may need to create a template. I'd suggest that (for now) we just write a note next to the article name on the VA tagging page. We need to discuss exactly what we plan to use for a template, how it's used, etc.

601:

I had originally planned the latter, however the former seems a better idea. The group could probably get away with also having it's own banner for articles with no project whatsoever, including some quite important ones;

3980:

Any assessment scheme must be robust and straightforward enough that it will be applicable to anything from an article about a railway station to a chemical element, from a minor character on Star Trek to an article like

2864:, but he had a bug in table generation (I think) which meant he couldn't display the test results for us to see. The main progress has been in the speed with which he can get through the data - seconds instead of hours. 1482:

as well (if not yet done - I know the French have made that update to their list). The VA tagging list is in fact a "snapshot" of the actual WP:VA list from about a month ago, since we can't work with a moving target.

4403: 2960:

Still waiting for results from the bot. Not entirely sure what's happening here, but the project started assessments around the first of the month. I would have thought the bot might have gotten to this project by now.

2558: 2406:

template, so I just kept using that behavior on the new template. As for WPCD - that is exactly the kind of thing I asked about when talking about checking the category tree - it is too complex, and I was bound to miss

4368:

is active and an ongoing project. I saw that a note was left on the project discussion page a long time ago but no response had been given from us (for my part, it was during a time when I wasn't very active on WP).

889:

Great! Should the 3 of us (+ other interested parties, eg Tito or Kirill?) get together on IRC, or have a conference call on Skype, to work out the best way to do this? Or should we just thrash out our ideas over at

3251:

I'm sure a simple bot could list the wikiprojects ordered by the number of unassessed articles. I did a quick manual check and this is what I found. Did I miss any big wikiprojects? Number unassessed (in thousands)

1169:, creating templates to help people find all of the corners of the project! Having done 0.5, my top priority, I reckoned this should be next - please see my effort at the top of the project page. One page is new, 3216:

The biography project is ten times the size of the Milhist project, and has one hundred times the backlog. Other than the mega-large Biography project, the projects with the most unassessed articles are those that

375:

This is the main discussion page for the Work via Wikiprojects part of the Knowledge 1.0 project. Please leave comments below. For technical issues regarding Mathbot, please direct your questions and comments to

1230: 4528: 4517: 4240:

Importance can be hard to assess, particularly outside your area of expertise. Thanks for fixing it, I see it's been changed. These assessments are organized and done by the relevant WikiProject, in this case

3715: 2583:

I looked in one of the already-established topical sections on the page to which this talk page is attached, and all of the tables in it have headings like "Contact with Contact with WP Rational Skepticism". —

4070:

this, it is good you are taking logs, this is generally a good thing to do with counts (such as hits, links), because the counts tend to be things that increase exponentially as a function of what you want to

2055:

Can someone who knows what they are doing start the "Everyday life" page and its subsections (incl. sports) please? I have content to add, but there's not place for it yet, and I just wandered in. I'm often

23: 3815: 4169: 1438: 4389:

When assessing articles, is there a way to drill down and find those that are at the intersection of TWO qualities? (I.e. stub, but high importance, or such), when using this sort of table of evaluations:

957:

If necessary, I can try connecting from school to IRC, but a set time, during the work week, would need to be scheduled. Otherwise, I like Walkerma's first suggestion better. More groups = divided effort.

4521: 3739:

My guess would be that maybe several FAs are assessed at different importance grades by various projects, and that those articles are showing up under each importance grade. That's just a guess, though.

1190:

category are included, central articles to the category often excluded. If we could fix up categorization, that might make things significantly easier. Does anyone know if anyone is actually doing that?

1042:

Yes - particularly, as I mentioned in the original discusion, above, because this project is already well established, so the task force would quickly gain a lot of support even by Knowledge standards.

4415: 4391: 4121: 2756:

their own assessment departments and templates. Share the infrastructure, it's much better that way - less talk page clutter, less pages to maintain, more hands on deck. I think the runaway success of

842: 1803:

Despite my concerns on your talk page, this could turn out OK for me to join in. Afternoons UTC are generally when I can get online, and Friday and Saturday evenings are very good aswell (also UTC).

4548: 3772:

There are 1268521 articles w/ a wikiproject dividing this by the number of total articles of 2,121,722 we get 59.787333119041985707835428015546% (about 3 out of 5) of articles have a wikiproject --

979: 4092:

This sounds to be a very workable suggestion, thanks. I was hoping to post a longer reply today, but it's reached 3am and I need some sleep! I'll try to respond in more detail tomorrow. Cheers,

4009:, and I'd really appreciate your input on that if you have the time. We will probably be fixing the formula in the next month or two, so now is the time to voice your opinion. See the discussion 1472: 364: 354: 344: 334: 4010: 3703: 4475: 3627: 2952: 3129: 2965: 2612:

aren't yet included one the lists of projects doing assessments, the ones by page on the bottom are those which are already included in the contact pages. Is there any way to maybe contact the

1867: 2443:

Thanks! I'm not really sure we will need the Release Version template at all; I think your new template covers the same ground and more. We may need to delete it if it is not in use. Thanks,

1114: 993: 3697: 1547:

when looking for assessments. I haven't tried the latest "killer app" version, but even the basic version worked very nicely, and saved a lot of time when looking at what had been assessed.

4485: 1160: 3038:

It is constrained to the common levels, however; one approach here may be to display your own rating in the template, but round it to the closest standard one when generating the category.

3023: 884: 786:(Unindent) Sorry I took a while to respond to the above request, I got distracted while working on this earlier. (We're also beta testing Version 0.5 :)). This idea would certainly be an 725: 712: 638: 625: 575: 3826:

Of course, some projects have a banner but haven't tagged all their articles. In those cases, category trawls are indeed the usual approach and there are many bot ops who would do the job.

3447:

Good Articles project in this scheme recently, and it created "WikiProject Good" which I thought might make a nice new project to spread Wikilove! There are two solutions to your problem:

3177: 2595: 2292:

I changed the wording "is part of ... (article list)" to "is one of the (article list)" in two locations on the template, as I think the latter flows more easily. I might be wrong though.

567: 3325: 3089: 2693: 2670: 2607: 213: 825:. Much of the existing infrastructure can be used and adapted. (By the way, one of my next projects is to write a site map for the rabbit warren that is Knowledge 1.0, that may help!). 741: 684: 669: 656: 647: 4344:

We're baffled by that - I had reviewed the Primates project so it was on our list, but the bot skipped over it for some reason. We'll try to find the problem ASAP and generate a list.

3744: 764: 693:

project wahtsoever, these would need a seperate banner until a suitible project could be found. I guess part of the scope of this project would be to locate projects for such articles.

3860: 3842: 3759: 3520: 3510: 3363: 3353: 3343: 3138: 3042: 2774: 2715: 2119:

No worries. Pushing 2am myself, and it's not like I need to spawn a flurry of beer-fuelled activity in the wee-hours. No big hurry. If a week passes I'll ping you about it. :-) —

1854: 1811: 1742: 1729: 1719: 1538: 1528: 1514: 1487: 1208: 1194: 1184: 1062: 1037: 1027: 922: 875: 595: 3848: 3115: 2989: 2980: 1892: 1878: 1418: 3233: 2388:. As for the 1.0 cats - I thought I had removed them earlier today? Unless somebody changed the template while I wasn't looking, those should be gone. I'll have a look there. As for 2296: 1921: 1908: 1449: 1360: 1346: 1282: 3786: 3675: 3631: 3059: 2424: 2340: 2042: 1738:

is the master list for projects using assessments, any list we used should be based on that. It's updated by bot so it's always within a day or so of being perfect. More later...

1135: 210: 3964:

There must be a mechanism for making the changes to the system without complete meltdown. There are over one million assessments already done on the English Knowledge, and around

3925: 3910: 898: 4507: 4353: 2542: 849: 4338: 3781: 3501: 3384: 3190: 2800: 2731: 2369: 2350: 2130: 2114: 2105: 2081: 3403: 891: 272: 2320: 4254: 3569: 3470: 2910: 2890: 2877: 2830: 2826: 1759: 1551: 1301: 1247: 1237: 841:) desperately need updating, but there is a lot of valuable information on these tables that should be used. I'd like to find some way of expanding & updating lists like 4378: 4308: 4294: 3309: 3162: 2026: 1629: 1413: 4216: 4202: 3856: 3811: 3661: 3559: 3243: 2899: 2868: 2846: 2837: 2447: 2418: 2015: 1845: 1832: 1823: 1679: 1644: 1395: 1084: 1003: 965: 485: 123: 4115: 4101: 4087: 4026: 3482:

class does it go back to? A class? GA class? Or B class? A good example is Gene. There doesn't seem to have a "safety net" to "catch" these articles when they are demoted.

526: 476: 4158: 2855: 2620: 2572: 2438: 457: 3463: 3440: 2287: 2274: 3210: 1695: 1222: 197: 90: 3651: 423: 3990:

The base feature is that the system should be able to separate the quality articles from the dross, and the current system does, by and large, do that (see our latest

3490: 2071: 1335: 266: 178: 2257:. I think that would benefit all. Too many templates are doing too many things already, and Kirill seems to know what he's doing when it comes to talkpage banners. -- 1596: 516: 2515: 230: 3895: 4470: 3852: 3807: 3741: 3507: 3350: 3322: 3207: 3174: 3126: 3086: 2986: 2962: 2949: 2690: 2617: 2293: 1851: 1726: 1692: 1593: 1525: 1500: 1469: 1191: 499: 3590: 2935: 4195:. (Note that there is no "WikiProject" in the category name.) Renaming the importance category to use the same format as the quality category should fix things. 4181: 3029:

The bot doesn't care about tags at all, actually; I'm pretty sure it doesn't even know they exist. What it actually looks for are the rendered categories (e.g.

2706:

I'll see if we can get WP:COUNCIL to use the same organisation scheme as we do, though that may be difficult. It would certainly help to harmonise things, even

1503: 999:

This would help us get more articles, so yes, it is a good idea. However, we should get another project to do it because doing it ourselves would take too long.

721:

or something similar on a given category we know falls within the scope of a given project, and assess those articles which aren't listed as being assessed yet.

2818: 3995: 3294: 1669: 1455: 86: 4444: 2227: 4275: 2493: 1658: 1651: 498:

Maybe this is a strange idea, but a lot of the articles right now don't fall within the scope of any projects doing assessments. A proposal has been made at

388: 206: 1701:

This is very helpful, thank you for working on it. Are these just the active projects? The list should be compared against those in the sub-directories of

4234: 3001: 2385: 226: 3608: 3506:

Follow-up question, though. If an FA had previously passed GA, and is then downgraded, would it be downgraded to GA, which it had earlier passed, or not?

588: 2940: 2578: 1797: 1524:

article is being considered for, etc. It might be easier to just update an existing template than having to keep adding a new one for every new release.

1409:

please try and get the children projects on the same bot as Motorsport, please. Many thanks. Can you reply on my talkpage, it's easier for me to get to.

1261: 396: 392: 136: 3880:

a little bit, and I've noticed that I cannot get that table of # of articles vs. assessment class made. It looks like a bot operation, which I've ran

3733: 2400: 2035:

show them; but, really, the code is the same as the code that shows the class, with just a different parameter being used and different text displayed.

464: 310: 1377: 4490: 3951: 3833:

I'm not saying any of this is desirable or uncontroversial (it may well be the opposite), merely pointing out a possibly easier route technically. --

3096: 1110:

Do others have other ideas on how to proceed? I'd like us to frame a strategy before I spend a lot of time rewriting the WVWP project description.

838: 3013:

We also have some additional levels of both quality and importance. Will the bot pick up on those, or do we have to stick with the pre-set levels?

4045:

be implied by an assessment process, and it is better to do this directly particularly when setting things up. You can then choose an article that

2148: 1265: 1253: 834: 795: 416: 193: 132: 4575: 3692: 817:

Therefore I would like to propose that the 1.0 team and the Council collaborate closely on this, with perhaps a joint team. Two ways to do this:

3152: 2504: 2482: 2471: 1637: 1410: 1323: 1226: 1170: 746:

I'm not sure how mnay people we would need to get this to go, considering it isn't at this point so much a project as a function. There is now a

415:

on data from four projects, with a view to pulling out suitable articles for release versions. I've got details of how it would work written up

377: 79: 75: 3555:, but I'm not sure how/where to create the various other pages and categories that are needed (and still need more coffee...). Much thanks :) -- 3016:

Speaking of the bot, we (hopefully soon) will be adding more attributes to our project template. Will additional tags give the bot gastritis?

3030: 2038:(If you can't get it working by Sunday evening, I may be able to fix it for you; but I doubt I'll have the chance to look at it until then.) 2720:

Let us know here when you do that. I for one will argue for it at COUNCIL. The more uniform we make this stuff the better it will work. —

756:

template which could be added to articles to indicate who did the assessment. We'd still need some sort of project page. I've contacted the

3767: 3315: 3078: 4516:, and would like to improve the assessment structure. Currently only articles that have graduated out of the Incubator are assessed (see 1602: 676: 643:

Yep. In cases where there's an existing project banner to use, it would probably be better to add that than to create some generic one.

2789:

that will be able to use WP:SPORTS assessments to prevent the tagging of WP:CUE-scope article's talk pages with both projects' tags. —

4498: 4423: 3417:

I've setup everything to work properly and it does for the most part, the only problem I can see right now is this stats/quality page:

3373: 1735: 1601: 60: 4074:. However, again I have to say this is a challenging one. It's interesting too, though, so I will indeed try to give what input I can. 1989:

template. I did some fiddling around and I think I got it working. How can I get the importance rating to show in the template, like

3002: 384: 56: 51: 17: 828:

Set up a completely new project under WP:COUNCIL as described above, with a more narrow focus than WVWP, but work closely with WVWP.

4414:

Not sure what's changed with the latest release, but with the manual tool down, I can't find how to create an assessment table for

4316: 3539: 2941: 2077:

I'll try and get something put up tomorrow night. Which projects are you reporting for, so I can make sure I cover those? Thanks,

1974: 1401: 1254: 437: 428: 4136: 2682:(1) know whose banner can be reasonably placed on an article that hasn't yet been assessed to allow assessment of the article, and 2168:), it is still missing several things. I did not add those things as I wanted to make sure they were going to be used beforehand. 833:

ago we contacted all the WikiProjects ("all" as of Oct '05, much fewer than today) so the community has heard of us. Tables like

4192: 3530: 1702: 1155: 1057: 1022: 917: 870: 707: 620: 562: 4553: 4527:

Is it possible to set up assessments for the Candidate articles, even though they are outside the mainspace? For example, Move

1613: 521: 821:

Rewrite the goals of WVWP to incorporate the new modus operandi, and also bring it under joint jurisdiction of WP:COUNCIL and

4494: 4365: 4359: 3657:

There looks to be a general problem as the latest BOT run has not updated any of the log files towards the end of its cycle.

1433: 661:

What would be the point? The articles only need to get assessed by a single project in order to enter the system; having an

248: 166: 3961:

Having watched the system grow, I would say that there are three main things to consider when trying to revamp the system:

3729:

says we currently have 1,652, but according to this page, we have 1,894! That's a big difference. Can anyone explain this?

3409: 3146: 3079: 1316: 757: 536: 47: 1387:, then realised that only yesterday he left an update with "garhh" in the edit summary. He's getting really annoyed with 3613: 1312:

The Work via Wikiprojects page (whose talk page this is) looks kind of messed up for the moment I think, with that large

4520:). But the Candidate articles are not. Candidate articles are outside of mainspace, and are 'works in progress' (see: 4539:. So the Incubator would end up with 2 assessment groups, one for public articles, and one for internal work. Thanks. 4465: 3374: 3336: 3100: 2971: 2814:

consider letting projects rate each other after we do a full-scale test with the multiplication scale and linkranking.

2550: 2534: 2428: 1608:

I think the bot may be getting confused by the ampersand in the quality category. It should be depositing the stats in

406: 4558: 3623: 4384:

Is there a way to find those articles that have two assessment characteristics? (i.e. High Importance, Stub) or such

4242: 4144: 1402: 429: 244: 162: 1464:

Considering his term has now expired, I was wondering if it might make sense to replace Annan on the VA list with

1837:

On second thoughts, we probably need some time for people to download and set up Chatzilla (or whatever). Would

1709:

as a simple way to highlight them. I think what you're doing is definitely the direction we need to be going in.

1884:

note on my talk page saying what was decided; I'll just have to go along with it. Sorry, wish I could be there,

4439: 4322: 3476: 2546: 2050: 2197:

parameter in for VAs, CORE or CORESUP, mostly because I'm waiting for the go-ahead signal from those projects;

652:

However, the project could create it's own banner to use in addition to the other applicable project banners.

3823:

unilaterally add the code to their templates if we're considering this a mandatory function of WikiProjects).

3645: 3575: 2613: 1662: 400: 294: 201: 2895:

I put up the centralised project ratings idea back up on the Martinbot discussion page (not his talk page).

2215:

Please also review the wording, and feel free to take the template out for a spin. The usage is as follows:

1384: 630:

Actually, I myself am in the process of doing all the religion related articles, and just haven't gotten to

436:

the "up to date" information for these kinds of assessment departments is btw. I'm somewhat lost in all the

3985:. It should be something that allows even a relative newcomer to WP to assess articles quickly and easily. 3868: 2808: 2600: 3418: 2647:

other, more general projects (and with special stuff for WP:BIO, since it is just, well, different due to

2165: 4513: 4163: 3726: 2783: 2266: 2251: 1650: 1147: 1049: 1014: 909: 862: 699: 612: 554: 493: 449: 3704:

Knowledge talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Proposal to remove the main biography project from the bot run

2882:

If you're making a dig at the progress, that's limited by Martin's time! I'm referring to his comment "

1748: 894:? I'll try and do some cleanup at WVWP in the next few days, and also work on the site map I mentioned. 3196: 2190:

I would love to have something similar to the MILHIST "hide" function, to hide all the tags by default;

2142: 1685: 1307: 502:

regarding setting up a group to specifically engage in assessments, and I've made a sample tempalte at

153: 98: 3085:

has been engaged in assessment for some time, but has yet to show any statistics. I have no idea why.

1233:

but have found it very effective. Outriggr might be able to modify the script to meet your needs. --

4449: 3711: 3671: 3549: 2164:

Currently, it is still in beta stage; while I think I did a lot of conditional statements right (see

1428: 1356: 1331: 1229:

created a beta-status script that permits assessing for different projects from the article page. We

71: 4409: 4260: 2151:}}. This template will supercede all of the Editorial Team's banners, including v0.5, v0.7, v1.0, 290: 4168:

I'm probably being dumb, but I can't fathom why the bot isn't picking up the importance splits on

4106:

Don't worry, get to it when you can -- I won't have much time in the next few days anyhow. Cheers

2110:

I haven't forgotten this, but it's almost 2am and I have to work tomorrow! Maybe tomorrow night?

903:

I've never used IRC, and don't have Skype, so I would be much more comfortable over at Talk:WVWP.

4282: 4145:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Opera_articles_by_quality_statistics

2241: 1585: 1563: 790:

addition to the 1.0 project. We are moving from a manual system of picking articles (as used at

321:

Several topics have been archived. Please see the table below for the complete list of archives.

4461: 4334: 3069:(sorry, couldn't resist the pun! I guess I'm just in a bovine moooood - I've been listening to 2861: 1914: 1885: 1860: 1804: 1142: 1044: 1009: 904: 857: 694: 607: 549: 109: 535:

There is currently a great deal of work being done across projects to assess articles for the

94: 4373: 4224: 4014: 3991: 3906: 3595: 2549:

will replace it if the parameters are filled properly. Also, I've gone ahead and created the

1781: 1675:

Thanks for reporting this. I'm not able to fix it, I'll see if we can find someone who can.

147: 105: 3221:

have a large, active membership, that are set up for assessing but haven't done any. (Edit:

2884:

I was able to do a dummy run on all FA and B class medicine articles in less than 5 seconds!

2211:

list parameter, because I wasn't sure how WP:1.0 would like to handle and display that info.

472:

sure that the right categories appear at the bottom of the talk page after tagging. Cheers,

3707: 3667: 2764: 1983: 1589: 1573: 1425: 1352: 1327: 4326: 3847:

Might work. Would there be any way to create another automatically updated page, like the

3380:

The assessment for this wikiproject has not updated in 4 days. Not quite sure what to do.

1260:

I'd like to participate in this. I've copied as much of the relevant stuff as I could to

665:

banner that's not actually tied to a functional subject-area project doesn't seem useful.

8: 4037: 3301: 3039: 2234: 2039: 1771: 1290: 1132: 738: 666: 644: 3391: 4544: 4437: 4349: 4290: 4250: 4212: 4177: 4154: 4097: 4022: 3973: 3936: 3881: 3838: 3777: 3755: 3619: 3170:

Knowledge:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/(fill in the blank) articles by quality statistics

2931:

be fixed this week, so let's hope! Once things there are fixed, he's all ready to go.

1569: 1493: 1368: 1177:

list. At 0.5, we found this low-tech, simple system worked very well, using <s: -->

881: 761: 722: 681: 653: 635: 592: 572: 513: 3399:(going through the Is as I type this), so I expect it will update the Ms later today. 1580:

are included on the VA list. This seems to me slightly US-centric. Shouldn't at least

4456: 4330: 4304: 4271: 3641: 3156: 2562: 2541:

Note that this category will be deprecated, as individual release categories such as

2091: 1665:. I'd fix it but I'm not sure how to and don't want to screw up a bunch of articles. 1294: 1100: 1074: 985: 468: 3452:

Create a redirect from WP:Cypriot to WP:Cyprus (this is what I did with the WP:Good)

2630:

as simple as you think. I regularly do assessments of articles within the scope of

1173:, and it is designed for doing the task we agreed upon - checking articles from the 4399: 4370: 3902: 3720: 3483: 3410: 3020: 2792: 2723: 2662: 2635: 2587: 2361: 2332: 2312: 2122: 2097: 2063: 2031:

The easiest thing would probably be to copy the relevant code from a template that

1993: 1272: 412: 3666:

Sorry, that was a bug I introduced recently. I fixed it now. Thanks for noticing.

1780:

meeting soon to plan a strategy for this project for the next year or so, held at

4111: 4083: 3947: 3916: 3886: 3381: 3222: 3203: 2948:

Is I believe set up for the bot. With any luck, the statistics will appear soon.

2757: 2262: 1577: 1388: 467:. If the guidance is more on how to run an assessment workgroup, take a look at 445: 4420:

Knowledge:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Ontario_road_articles_by_quality_statistics

4141:

This table only shows the articles assessed as stubs but not the other classes:

1705:. I'm thinking that perhaps we should highlight the non-assessing projects in ' 4281:

Pyrospirit has taken over this script, it's the metadata.js script linked from

4054:

particularly when it comes to the border of one classification and the next up.

3869: 3730: 3226: 2679:

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me the purpose of having the list is to

2326: 2057: 2003: 1096: 802: 791: 4489:

system to evaluate article quality improvement through the project. Check out

4481: 4170:

Knowledge:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Gymnastics articles by quality statistics

4541: 4431: 4345: 4286: 4246: 4231: 4208: 4173: 4150: 4093: 4018: 3877: 3834: 3773: 3751: 3689: 3566: 3556: 3517: 3498: 3460: 3400: 3360: 3340: 3306: 3240: 3135: 3056: 3051:

Kirill is correct, but I have to ask why you wouldn't use the generic terms?

2932: 2907: 2887: 2874: 2865: 2834: 2771: 2745: 2712: 2648: 2643: 2639: 2631: 2526: 2444: 2347: 2306: 2155: 2111: 2087: 2078: 2023: 1961:

Ways to find the subject areas that currently have poor coverage by projects.

1842: 1829: 1828:

OK, how about this Sat evening UTC (afternoon in the US) - perhaps 1900 UTC?

1794: 1756: 1739: 1716: 1676: 1641: 1548: 1535: 1511: 1484: 1446: 1392: 1343: 1298: 1279: 1244: 1234: 1205: 1181: 1166: 1111: 1034: 990: 895: 846: 822: 737:

happy to have help with getting untagged articles tagged and/or assesed. :-)

481:

Is there a reason why we have television shows in their current run listed?--

473: 420: 3965: 4392:

Knowledge:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Theatre articles by quality statistics

4300: 4267: 3683: 3658: 3636: 3605: 3602: 3587: 3332: 3290: 3186: 3111: 3105: 2976: 2707: 2554: 2270: 2011: 1874: 1816:

Weekend evenings are good for me as well this week. When and at what time?

1691:

guessing you'll want to have those Projects separated out from the others?

1610:

Knowledge:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/D&D_articles_by_quality_statistics

1479: 1174: 1124: 1120: 1092: 750: 718: 506: 453: 3999: 3396: 4395: 4245:; if there's some discussion needed, it should be raised there. Thanks, 4196: 4071: 3230: 3070: 2896: 2886:" - with the old MartinBotII system this would have taken an hour or so. 2852: 2843: 2815: 2566: 2432: 2412: 2384:

do that, once I have the time, or until somebody beats me to filling out

2281: 2221: 1902: 1817: 1666: 1626: 1465: 1374: 1078: 1000: 959: 500:

Knowledge:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Assessment of unassessed articles

482: 3535:

Hi, I was wondering if someone could help setup the assessment code for

3439:. Is there something I did wrong? How do I correct it, if it is wrong? 1979:

I'm trying to figure out how to add class and importance ratings on the

1351:

Thanks, I think the the navigation template looks better at the bottom.

801:

I think I would like to combine the efforts of this proposed group with

4107: 4079: 3943: 2258: 1457: 441: 174: 2779:

I believe this is what I'm getting at. I'm actually working on a new

2094:

for now. I'm sure once the section is open others will wander in. —

1752: 1661:

isn't working properly on certain articles - specifically the one on

4207:

Told you I was being dumb -- thanks for that, all working now :) --

3019:

We're looking forward to getting our first automated assessment! -

2009:, which doesn't show it. Could someone check it out for me. Thanks. 3033:) on the talk page; how those are produced is completely up to you. 1581: 4005:

We are also deep into testing our algorithm for assessing article

3849:

Knowledge:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality

1123:

isn't a bad place to start. Another possibility might be to have

2985:

I feel truly stupid for that mistake. Thanks for the pointer. :)

1077:

onto helping us out somehow. He says he is "Envious of de.wp"...

1008:

Why can't it be a seperate task force within the larger project?

4476:

Wikiproject: U.S. Public Policy Requesting Assessment Volunteers

3901:

It is a bot operation. I'll look into it and see what I can do.

2329:

and discovered that "|v0.5=fail" doesn't seem to do anything. —

1478:

Yes this would be fine, I think, though it should be changed at

4418:. I can make one on the Toolserver, but the page on wikipedia ( 3982: 1180:

Others are of course welcome to help with these tasks as well!

24:

Knowledge talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects

4172:. IfI'm being dumb, how do I go about fixing this? Thanks! -- 3698:

Proposal to remove the main biography project from the bot run

2060:

but not when I don't know the templates and formatting yet. —

349:

April 2006-May 2006, mainly on setting up Mathbot assessments

3103:. It's needed for the bot to detect it, which it now has. :) 2974:. It's needed for the bot to detect it, which it now has. :) 67: 37: 3055:

bots and scripts read the parameters, not the categories. --

1958:

After VAs and core topics (incl. the supplement), then what?

4576:

Template talk:WikiProject banner shell § Standalone version

2906:

Wasn't making a dig at all. Thanks for clearing that up! --

1898: 631: 603: 2616:

to perhaps develop a uniform breakdown of these projects?

1859:

Assuming I can set it up OK, I should be able to make it.

1419:

Removing the importance part from our projects assessments

3919: 3889: 3787:

Probably extremely difficult, if not impossible, proposal

3603:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Texas_A%26M

3459:

Thanks for using the bot, and enjoy your trip to Greece!

3184:

It'd help if you told us what project you're working on.

3134:

Kudos to you for taking the initiative to get it sorted!

2655:, there's no effect at all, but if it is to ID WPPs that 1790: 1777: 4537:

Category:Article Incubator Candidate Articles by quality

4508:

Article Incubator Assessments - Graduates vs. Candidates

1165:

OK, I'm doing a sweep through all of the subprojects of

4533:

Category:Article Incubator Graduate Articles by quality

4364:

Hi there - just wanted to leave a note saying that the

2423:

Ok, I've commented out the 1.0 categories, and readded

2396:, et al, what we did originally was to just remove the 4189:

Category:WikiProject Gymnastics articles by importance

3229:

are large projects that could stand (a lot of) help.)

2380:, mostly because I haven't gotten around to it yet. I 634:

yet. However, I do enthusiastically support the idea.

3157: 1948:(2000h CET, or 3pm US Eastern Daylight Savings Time). 3882:

http://www.math.ucla.edu/~aoleg/wp/wp10/run_wp10.cgi

3390:

OK, it looks as if someone at your project has used

2161:, and templates for Vital articles and core topics. 1747:

I only learnt about IRC last summer, take a look at

591:

project proposal into this one, one way or another.

1785: 1262:

Knowledge:WikiProject History of Science/Assessment

4455:running Work Via Wikiprojects care either way. -- 980:Assessment of unassessed articles (New discussion) 465:Knowledge:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot 440:pages and can't seem to find a set of clear rules 4285:. I'll try to update the link from here. Cheers, 3688:Where and how do I ask for articles to be rated? 3349:backlog ever gets reduced to a managable number. 3455:Rename the category "Cyprus articles by quality" 2657:are bothering to get into the assessment process 2147:As requested on the IRC meeting, here we have {{ 1293:should probably collaborate with you on getting 1266:Knowledge:WikiProject Science Fiction/Assessment 4327:automated selection of articles for Version 0.7 1324:Knowledge:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics 378:Knowledge talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index 4529:Category:Article Incubator articles by quality 4518:Category:Article Incubator articles by quality 2183:yet, mostly because I don't know how to do so 1278:. Please let me know what else I should do.-- 4124:- please post additional comments over there. 4002:?), and probably others that you may suggest. 3031:Category:A-Class musical instruments articles 760:regarding this, and am awaiting a response. 587:would certainly welcome rolling the proposed 544:Interested Wikipedians (please add your name) 4422:) is blank, despite there being an entry on 1268:), and copied in the assessment code to the 1131:tagging a few in their scope for them will. 4187:It's probably because the bot doesn't like 3998:?), bots, scripts and other tools (such as 677:Knowledge:WikiProject League of Copyeditors 4522:Category:Articles in the Article Incubator 3099:all over again. ;) "You forgot to add the 1373:Is Martinbot ready to do a full test run? 4416:Category:Ontario_road_articles_by_quality 3003:Knowledge:WikiProject Musical Instruments 2559:Core topic supplement articles by quality 1850:Should be able to be there at that time. 419:. Please take a look and give feedback. 18:Knowledge talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team 2942:Knowledge:WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy 2873:Or "hours rather than seconds" maybe? -- 2659:, you'd have a very different story. — 1255:Knowledge:WikiProject History of Science 809:projects, and switch to trying to focus 4193:Category:Gymnastics articles by quality 1703:Knowledge:WikiProject Council/Directory 1612:, but instead they're showing up under 319: 14: 4061:Regarding the algorithm for assessing 4049:of one classification and another the 1614:Knowledge:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/D 1243:haven't had a chance to try that yet. 948:Heh, funny. I just uninstalled Skype. 717:It would probably work best if we ran 4149:Can anyone fix it? Best regards, -- 2376:Well, the template is not documented 2233:Just as a note, you should work with 527:Copied from the above WP:COUNCIL link 3768:Percent of articles w/ a wikiproject 3316:Unassessed-Class articles by project 3080:Knowledge:WikiProject Gender Studies 1999:? I copied the importance code from 1297:up to FA status some time! Cheers, 1221:A few of us recently put together a 758:Knowledge:Version 1.0 Editorial Team 4015:here, with quality ratings included 3725:Where's all these FAs coming from? 3125:), have real trouble admitting it. 2860:I think the results will be posted 794:) to an automated system (outlined 30: 3375:Knowledge:WikiProject Music venues 3337:Category:Unassessed-Class_articles 3335:do this, perhaps trawling through 3202:single largest project out there, 3101:Category:Knowledge 1.0 assessments 3010:it's OK, but you never know....)? 2972:Category:Knowledge 1.0 assessments 2565:), so we can track those as well. 2535:Category:Knowledge Release Version 2429:Category:Knowledge Release Version 1967:MartinBotII and Version 0.5 update 1751:which helped me get started using 1603:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons 36: 31: 4587: 4512:Greetings. I'm working with the 3624:Category:LGBT articles by quality 3545:. I copied/adapted the code from 3071:Spike Jones and the City Slickers 2579:"Contact with Contact with" error 4569: 4495:ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) 4317:Omission of WikiProject Primates 4243:Knowledge:WikiProject Psychology 3331:This is an excellent idea. Can 1975:WikiProject Environment template 1543:I would encourage people to use 1403:Knowledge:WikiProject Motorsport 1322:on top, and now with a blown up 1264:and the related pages (based on 430:Knowledge:WikiProject Television 385:WP1.0 editorial team discussions 4491:WikiProject: U.S. Public Policy 3540:WikiProject Veterinary medicine 3531:WikiProject Veterinary medicine 3485: 3155:to the WikiProject i work on ? 2425:Category:Knowledge CD Selection 1841:(afternoon in the US) work OK? 1776:I'd like to propose we have an 1622:D&D articles by quality log 733:do! Certain projects would be 4354:01:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC) 4339:02:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC) 4323:Knowledge:WikiProject Primates 4309:16:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC) 4295:15:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC) 4276:22:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC) 4230:out who decides these things. 3716:16:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC) 3634:. Any ideas why? Thanks! -- 2547:Category:Knowledge Version 0.7 2543:Category:Knowledge Version 0.5 1964:How best to organize the work. 522:New direction for this project 463:You may find what you need at 13: 1: 4503:23:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 4366:ITC Entertainment Wikiproject 4360:WikiProject ITC Entertainment 4137:What's wrong with this table? 3782:21:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 3760:22:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 3693:19:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 3521:04:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC) 3511:20:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 3423:Knowledge:WikiProject Cypriot 2614:Knowledge:WikiProject Council 1663:Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer 1473:21:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 1450:01:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 1439:01:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 1424:bot do after this is done? - 1414:19:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 1396:22:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 1378:00:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 1361:23:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1347:19:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1336:16:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1223:WPBiograply assessment drive. 1209:04:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1200:help here if you get nowhere. 1195:20:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 1148: 1050: 1015: 910: 863: 700: 613: 555: 486:15:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 179:Offline WP for Indian Schools 4549:11:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC) 4299:Thanks for the information. 3926:17:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 3911:16:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 3896:08:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 3745:18:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 3734:18:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 3630:, but it doesn't update the 3433:Knowledge:WikiProject Cyprus 3147:SERIOUS TERRIBLE QUESTION :S 1901:if your IRC client acts up. 1302:05:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 1283:21:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 1185:04:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC) 1161:19:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 1152: 1136:18:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 1115:18:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 1085:18:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 1063:19:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC) 1054: 1038:15:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC) 1028:07:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC) 1019: 1004:14:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC) 994:04:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC) 966:18:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 923:18:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC) 914: 899:18:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC) 885:16:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC) 876:20:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC) 867: 850:19:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC) 765:15:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 742:17:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC) 726:17:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC) 713:17:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC) 704: 689:For articles not covered by 685:17:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC) 670:17:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC) 657:17:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC) 648:19:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 639:18:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 626:18:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 617: 596:18:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 576:18:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 568:17:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 559: 517:15:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 7: 4404:22:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC) 4255:03:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC) 4235:23:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC) 3861:18:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 3843:16:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 3816:15:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 3727:Knowledge:Featured articles 3614:LGBT Log page not updating? 3109:22:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)" 2653:have assessment departments 1970:(please add more as needed) 1915: 1886: 1861: 1805: 1618:D&D articles by quality 1317:Work via Wikiprojects pages 1156: 1127:run on some key categories. 1058: 1023: 918: 871: 708: 621: 563: 477:05:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC) 458:01:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC) 424:09:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 369:October 2006-December 2006 10: 4592: 4567: 4379:14:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC) 4102:07:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 4088:04:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC) 4027:16:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 3952:07:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 3421:. I don't get why it says 3419:Cyprus articles by quality 3090:20:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 3060:11:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 3043:11:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 3024:08:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 2936:14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 2911:14:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2775:12:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 2744:The "child projects" like 2716:07:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 2694:15:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC) 2671:00:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC) 2621:19:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC) 2596:21:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 2573:05:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC) 2448:05:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 2439:05:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 2427:. In the process, I found 2419:04:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 2411:. I'll see what I can do. 2370:05:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 2351:04:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 2341:20:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 2321:20:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 2297:17:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 2288:17:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 2275:17:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 2228:05:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 2131:07:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 2115:05:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 2106:02:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 2082:01:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 2072:23:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC) 2043:15:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC) 2027:02:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC) 2016:15:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 1922:18:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC) 1909:18:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC) 1893:18:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC) 1879:02:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC) 1868:19:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 1855:19:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 1846:19:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 1833:13:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 1824:06:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 1812:07:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 1798:04:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 1760:04:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 1743:21:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC) 1730:19:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC) 1720:16:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC) 1696:14:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC) 1680:03:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC) 1670:18:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC) 1645:03:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC) 984:There was a suggestion at 537:Version 1.0 Editorial Team 407:Setting up for MartinBotII 401:Pushing to 1.0 discussions 4471:05:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC) 4445:18:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 4217:19:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC) 4203:18:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC) 4182:18:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC) 4116:03:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 3609:00:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 3591:10:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC) 3471:15:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC) 3469:Thank you very much!!!! 3310:20:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 3300:I'm also well aware that 3295:05:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 2990:22:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 2981:22:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 2966:20:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC) 2953:15:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC) 2900:14:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC) 2891:17:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC) 2878:16:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC) 2869:16:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC) 2856:15:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC) 2847:03:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC) 2838:20:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC) 2819:16:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC) 2801:21:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC) 2732:21:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC) 2551:Vital articles by quality 1913:That works fine. Thanks! 1630:20:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC) 1597:18:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC) 1552:05:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 1539:16:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC) 1529:16:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC) 1515:02:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC) 1504:19:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC) 1488:01:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC) 1248:05:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 1238:07:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC) 835:Philosophy & Religion 359:June 2006-September 2006 339:November 2005-April 2006 95:Version 0.8 bot selection 87:Article selection process 4559:WikiProject banner shell 4482:Public Policy Initiative 4321:Is there are reason why 3966:180,000 on the French WP 3676:00:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 3662:17:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 3652:16:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 3570:19:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC) 3560:17:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC) 3502:01:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC) 3491:13:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC) 3464:01:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC) 3441:23:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC) 3244:02:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC) 2431:. What is that one for? 2237:who is the drive behind 1899:http://www.ircatwork.com 1456:Possible replacement of 1225:At about the same time, 589:Project Support Services 4493:if interested. Thanks! 4159:21:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 4122:central discussion area 4047:defines the upper limit 3876:I've been working with 3618:Hi! I've just run the 3427:Contact with WP Cypriot 3404:03:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 3385:02:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 3364:02:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 3354:19:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 3344:18:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 3326:16:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 3234:01:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC) 3211:00:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC) 3191:15:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 3178:14:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 3163:09:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 3139:02:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC) 3130:15:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 3116:07:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 2842:Where are the results? 2166:for the template voodoo 1946:Sunday evening 1900 UTC 1872:The time works for me. 1839:Sunday evening 1900 UTC 1586:University of Cambridge 411:Recently we tested out 389:Core topics discussions 3996:one used at WP:MILHIST 3915:Thank you very much! 3477:Downgrading an article 3437:Contact with WP Cyprus 3173:assessments material. 2970:You forgot to add the 2280:are still left to do. 2271:WikiProject Television 2088:WikiProject Cue sports 2051:Everyday life / Sports 1534:CDs are out. Thanks, 1231:just started using it, 454:WikiProject Television 311:Static content subcom. 41: 4325:was omitted from the 3576:WikiProject Yorkshire 3305:with similar issues. 3204:WikiProject Biography 3151:How can i add such a 2642:assessments, because 2325:Also installed it at 2179:It doesn't work with 1953:Proposed agenda items 1592:be included as well? 397:FAs first discussions 393:Wiki sort discussions 68:Release version tools 40: 4514:WP:Article Incubator 3870:WikiProject Robotics 2809:Martinbot, yet again 1590:University of Oxford 1574:Princeton University 1545:this javascript tool 880:Sounds great to me. 99:Version 0.8 feedback 4164:Assistance with bot 4038:pairwise comparison 3397:bot is hard at work 2235:User:Kirill Lokshin 2175:Some other issues: 2092:WikiProject Snooker 1652:Template:WP1.0 Arts 1383:I just sent Martin 494:Possible task force 322: 245:"Selection" project 202:Core topics - 1,000 163:"Selection" project 152:(manual selection) 148:Version 0.8 release 4191:when there exists 4120:OK, I've set up a 3974:copper(I) chloride 3626:. It updates the 3413:stats/quality page 3256:93,000 - biography 3197:VA tagging (again) 2784:Cue sports project 2752:and I would argue 2626:This might not be 2601:Assessing projects 2386:Template:WP1.0/doc 2252:WikiProjectBanners 2207:I did not put the 2193:I haven't put the 2143:Shiny new template 1686:Assessing projects 1570:Harvard University 1308:Style of this page 1157:Receive My EviLove 1149:Open Up Your Heart 1059:Receive My EviLove 1051:Open Up Your Heart 1024:Receive My EviLove 1016:Open Up Your Heart 934:(Copied over from 919:Receive My EviLove 911:Open Up Your Heart 872:Receive My EviLove 864:Open Up Your Heart 709:Receive My EviLove 701:Open Up Your Heart 622:Receive My EviLove 614:Open Up Your Heart 564:Receive My EviLove 556:Open Up Your Heart 320: 42: 4469: 4450:Tagging redirects 4429:What'd I b0rk? - 3074: 2204:in, as agreed to; 1917:Blood Red Sandman 1888:Blood Red Sandman 1863:Blood Red Sandman 1807:Blood Red Sandman 1468:, his successor? 1437: 1295:Antoine Lavoisier 1144:Blood Red Sandman 1046:Blood Red Sandman 1011:Blood Red Sandman 906:Blood Red Sandman 859:Blood Red Sandman 837:and (even worse) 696:Blood Red Sandman 609:Blood Red Sandman 551:Blood Red Sandman 403: 373: 372: 318: 317: 314: 298: 276: 252: 234: 216: 181: 175:schools selection 170: 156: 140: 126: 22:(Redirected from 4583: 4573: 4572: 4563: 4557: 4547: 4459: 4434: 4410:WP Ontario roads 4261:Assessment tools 4200: 3921: 3920:- Jameson L. Tai 3891: 3890:- Jameson L. Tai 3650: 3649: 3554: 3550:WikiProject Cats 3548: 3544: 3538: 3488: 3487: 3293: 3189: 3168:Create the page 3159: 3114: 3108: 3073:lately :-))~...) 3068: 2979: 2799: 2796: 2795: 2788: 2782: 2769: 2763: 2730: 2727: 2726: 2669: 2666: 2665: 2594: 2591: 2590: 2570: 2531: 2525: 2520: 2514: 2509: 2503: 2498: 2492: 2487: 2481: 2476: 2470: 2436: 2416: 2405: 2399: 2368: 2365: 2364: 2339: 2336: 2335: 2319: 2316: 2315: 2305:Installed it at 2285: 2256: 2250: 2246: 2240: 2225: 2186: 2160: 2154: 2129: 2126: 2125: 2104: 2101: 2100: 2090:and its "child" 2070: 2067: 2066: 2014: 2008: 2002: 1998: 1992: 1988: 1982: 1919: 1906: 1890: 1877: 1865: 1821: 1809: 1431: 1321: 1315: 1277: 1271: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1082: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1025: 1021: 1017: 963: 956: 951: 936: 935: 920: 916: 912: 873: 869: 865: 755: 749: 710: 706: 702: 623: 619: 615: 565: 561: 557: 511: 505: 413:User:MartinBotII 383: 323: 308: 289: 265: 243: 225: 192: 173: 161: 145: 131: 124:Release criteria 122: 33: 32: 27: 4591: 4590: 4586: 4585: 4584: 4582: 4581: 4580: 4579: 4578: 4570: 4566: 4561: 4555: 4540: 4510: 4478: 4452: 4442: 4432: 4412: 4386: 4376: 4362: 4319: 4263: 4227: 4198: 4166: 4139: 3939: 3873: 3789: 3770: 3723: 3708:Oleg Alexandrov 3700: 3686: 3668:Oleg Alexandrov 3639: 3635: 3628:statistics page 3616: 3598: 3578: 3565:Thank you :) -- 3552: 3546: 3542: 3536: 3533: 3484: 3479: 3415: 3378: 3318: 3289: 3199: 3185: 3149: 3110: 3104: 3083: 3007: 2975: 2946: 2811: 2797: 2791: 2790: 2786: 2780: 2770:proves this. -- 2767: 2761: 2728: 2722: 2721: 2667: 2661: 2660: 2603: 2592: 2586: 2585: 2581: 2568: 2529: 2523: 2518: 2512: 2507: 2501: 2496: 2490: 2485: 2479: 2474: 2468: 2434: 2414: 2403: 2397: 2366: 2360: 2359: 2337: 2331: 2330: 2317: 2311: 2310: 2283: 2254: 2248: 2244: 2238: 2223: 2219: 2184: 2158: 2152: 2145: 2127: 2121: 2120: 2102: 2096: 2095: 2068: 2062: 2061: 2053: 2010: 2006: 2000: 1996: 1990: 1986: 1980: 1977: 1904: 1873: 1819: 1786:this discussion 1784:. Please read 1774: 1688: 1655: 1606: 1578:Yale University 1566: 1564:VA Universities 1496: 1462: 1421: 1406: 1371: 1353:Oleg Alexandrov 1328:Oleg Alexandrov 1319: 1313: 1310: 1275: 1269: 1258: 1178:and </s: --> 1080: 982: 961: 954: 949: 753: 747: 606:comes to mind. 529: 524: 509: 503: 496: 433: 409: 326:Archive number 198:CORE SUPPLEMENT 29: 28: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4589: 4568: 4565: 4552: 4535:, then Create 4509: 4506: 4477: 4474: 4451: 4448: 4440: 4411: 4408: 4407: 4406: 4385: 4382: 4374: 4361: 4358: 4357: 4356: 4318: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4311: 4262: 4259: 4258: 4257: 4226: 4223: 4222: 4221: 4220: 4219: 4165: 4162: 4138: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4127: 4126: 4125: 4075: 4059: 4055: 4033: 4003: 3988: 3987: 3986: 3978: 3969: 3959: 3938: 3935: 3933: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3885:it. Thanks! 3872: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3831: 3827: 3824: 3819: 3818: 3803: 3800: 3797: 3788: 3785: 3769: 3766: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3722: 3719: 3699: 3696: 3685: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3615: 3612: 3597: 3594: 3577: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3532: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3478: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3457: 3456: 3453: 3449: 3448: 3414: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3377: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3321:need of help. 3317: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3285: 3284: 3281: 3280:5 - television 3278: 3275: 3272: 3271:8 - california 3269: 3266: 3263: 3260: 3257: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3198: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3181: 3180: 3148: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3118: 3082: 3077: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3046: 3045: 3040:Kirill Lokshin 3035: 3034: 3006: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2945: 2939: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2810: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2754:shouldn't have 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2683: 2674: 2673: 2602: 2599: 2580: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2532: 2521: 2516:releaseversion 2510: 2499: 2488: 2477: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2395: 2391: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2327:Talk:New Delhi 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2242:ArticleHistory 2217: 2213: 2212: 2210: 2205: 2203: 2200:I did not put 2198: 2196: 2191: 2188: 2182: 2144: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2052: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2040:Kirill Lokshin 2036: 1976: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1968: 1965: 1962: 1959: 1955: 1954: 1950: 1949: 1943: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1835: 1814: 1782:#wikipedia-1.0 1773: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1734:Incidentally, 1711: 1710: 1687: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1654: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1605: 1600: 1568:I notice only 1565: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1518: 1517: 1495: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1461: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1420: 1417: 1405: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1370: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1309: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1289:chemist we at 1257: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1240: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1201: 1133:Kirill Lokshin 1128: 1093:Vital articles 1088: 1087: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1006: 981: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 969: 968: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 830: 829: 826: 784: 783: 782: 781: 780: 779: 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 744: 739:Kirill Lokshin 667:Kirill Lokshin 645:Kirill Lokshin 584: 583: 579: 578: 570: 546: 545: 541: 540: 533: 528: 525: 523: 520: 495: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 432: 427: 408: 405: 371: 370: 367: 361: 360: 357: 351: 350: 347: 341: 340: 337: 331: 330: 327: 316: 315: 305: 304: 303: 300: 299: 291:Pushing to 1.0 286: 285: 282: 281: 278: 277: 268: 262: 261: 258: 257: 254: 253: 240: 239: 236: 235: 222: 221: 218: 217: 204: 200: 196: 189: 188: 187: 184: 183: 177: 171: 158: 157: 151: 142: 141: 128: 127: 119: 118: 117: 114: 113: 102: 101: 97: 93: 89: 83: 82: 70: 64: 63: 55: 44: 43: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4588: 4577: 4560: 4551: 4550: 4546: 4543: 4538: 4534: 4530: 4525: 4523: 4519: 4515: 4505: 4504: 4500: 4496: 4492: 4487: 4483: 4473: 4472: 4467: 4463: 4458: 4447: 4446: 4443: 4438: 4436: 4435: 4427: 4425: 4421: 4417: 4405: 4401: 4397: 4393: 4388: 4387: 4381: 4380: 4377: 4372: 4367: 4355: 4351: 4347: 4343: 4342: 4341: 4340: 4336: 4332: 4328: 4324: 4310: 4306: 4302: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4292: 4288: 4284: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4277: 4273: 4269: 4256: 4252: 4248: 4244: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4233: 4225:Re-assessment 4218: 4214: 4210: 4206: 4205: 4204: 4201: 4194: 4190: 4186: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4179: 4175: 4171: 4161: 4160: 4156: 4152: 4147: 4146: 4142: 4123: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4113: 4109: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4099: 4095: 4091: 4090: 4089: 4085: 4081: 4076: 4073: 4068: 4064: 4060: 4056: 4052: 4048: 4044: 4039: 4034: 4030: 4029: 4028: 4024: 4020: 4016: 4012: 4008: 4004: 4001: 3997: 3993: 3989: 3984: 3979: 3975: 3970: 3967: 3963: 3962: 3960: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3949: 3945: 3934: 3927: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3914: 3913: 3912: 3908: 3904: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3894: 3893: 3892: 3883: 3879: 3871: 3862: 3858: 3854: 3850: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3840: 3836: 3832: 3828: 3825: 3821: 3820: 3817: 3813: 3809: 3804: 3801: 3798: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3784: 3783: 3779: 3775: 3761: 3757: 3753: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3743: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3732: 3728: 3718: 3717: 3713: 3709: 3705: 3695: 3694: 3691: 3677: 3673: 3669: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3660: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3647: 3643: 3638: 3633: 3629: 3625: 3621: 3611: 3610: 3607: 3604: 3596:Texas A&M 3593: 3592: 3589: 3585: 3582: 3571: 3568: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3558: 3551: 3541: 3522: 3519: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3509: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3500: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3489: 3472: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3462: 3454: 3451: 3450: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3438: 3434: 3431: 3428: 3424: 3420: 3412: 3405: 3402: 3398: 3393: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3383: 3376: 3365: 3362: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3352: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3324: 3311: 3308: 3303: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3292: 3282: 3279: 3276: 3274:8 - australia 3273: 3270: 3267: 3264: 3261: 3258: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3245: 3242: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3232: 3228: 3224: 3220: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3209: 3205: 3192: 3188: 3183: 3182: 3179: 3176: 3171: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3160: 3154: 3140: 3137: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3128: 3124: 3119: 3117: 3113: 3107: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3088: 3081: 3076: 3072: 3061: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3044: 3041: 3037: 3036: 3032: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3022: 3017: 3014: 3011: 3004: 2991: 2988: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2978: 2973: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2964: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2951: 2943: 2938: 2937: 2934: 2930: 2912: 2909: 2905: 2901: 2898: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2876: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2867: 2863: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2854: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2845: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2836: 2832: 2828: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2817: 2802: 2794: 2785: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2773: 2766: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2742: 2733: 2725: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2714: 2709: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2695: 2692: 2689: 2684: 2681: 2680: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2672: 2664: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2619: 2615: 2610: 2609: 2598: 2597: 2589: 2574: 2571: 2564: 2560: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2533: 2528: 2522: 2517: 2511: 2506: 2500: 2495: 2489: 2484: 2478: 2473: 2467: 2466: 2463: 2462: 2449: 2446: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2437: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2417: 2410: 2402: 2393: 2389: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2363: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2349: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2334: 2328: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2314: 2308: 2307:Talk:Albinism 2304: 2298: 2295: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2286: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2253: 2243: 2236: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2226: 2216: 2208: 2206: 2201: 2199: 2194: 2192: 2189: 2180: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2173: 2169: 2167: 2162: 2157: 2150: 2132: 2124: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2113: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2099: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2080: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2065: 2059: 2044: 2041: 2037: 2034: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2025: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2013: 2005: 1995: 1985: 1969: 1966: 1963: 1960: 1957: 1956: 1952: 1951: 1947: 1944: 1941: 1940: 1923: 1920: 1918: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1907: 1900: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1891: 1889: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1876: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1866: 1864: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1853: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1834: 1831: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1822: 1815: 1813: 1810: 1808: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1796: 1792: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1761: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1728: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1718: 1713: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1694: 1681: 1678: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1653: 1646: 1643: 1639: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1628: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1604: 1599: 1598: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1553: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1537: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1527: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1516: 1513: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1502: 1489: 1486: 1481: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1471: 1467: 1459: 1451: 1448: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1435: 1430: 1427: 1416: 1415: 1412: 1404: 1397: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1376: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1345: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1318: 1303: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1281: 1274: 1267: 1263: 1256: 1249: 1246: 1241: 1239: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1210: 1207: 1202: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1193: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1183: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1159: 1151: 1146: 1145: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1134: 1129: 1126: 1122: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1113: 1108: 1104: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1086: 1083: 1076: 1072: 1071: 1064: 1061: 1053: 1048: 1047: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1036: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1026: 1018: 1013: 1012: 1007: 1005: 1002: 998: 997: 996: 995: 992: 987: 967: 964: 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 924: 921: 913: 908: 907: 902: 901: 900: 897: 893: 888: 887: 886: 883: 882:Badbilltucker 879: 878: 877: 874: 866: 861: 860: 854: 853: 852: 851: 848: 844: 843:this bot list 840: 836: 827: 824: 820: 819: 818: 815: 812: 808: 804: 799: 797: 793: 789: 766: 763: 762:Badbilltucker 759: 752: 745: 743: 740: 736: 732: 729: 728: 727: 724: 723:Badbilltucker 720: 716: 715: 714: 711: 703: 698: 697: 692: 688: 687: 686: 683: 682:Badbilltucker 678: 673: 672: 671: 668: 664: 660: 659: 658: 655: 654:Badbilltucker 651: 650: 649: 646: 642: 641: 640: 637: 636:Badbilltucker 633: 629: 628: 627: 624: 616: 611: 610: 605: 600: 599: 598: 597: 594: 593:Badbilltucker 590: 581: 580: 577: 574: 573:Badbilltucker 571: 569: 566: 558: 553: 552: 548: 547: 543: 542: 538: 534: 531: 530: 519: 518: 515: 514:Badbilltucker 508: 501: 487: 484: 480: 479: 478: 475: 470: 466: 462: 461: 460: 459: 455: 451: 447: 443: 439: 431: 426: 425: 422: 418: 414: 404: 402: 398: 394: 390: 386: 381: 379: 368: 366: 363: 362: 358: 356: 353: 352: 348: 346: 343: 342: 338: 336: 333: 332: 328: 325: 324: 313: 312: 307: 306: 302: 301: 296: 292: 288: 287: 284: 283: 280: 279: 274: 270: 267:WORK VIA WIKI 264: 263: 260: 259: 256: 255: 250: 246: 242: 241: 238: 237: 232: 228: 224: 223: 220: 219: 215: 212: 208: 203: 199: 195: 191: 190: 186: 185: 182: 180: 176: 168: 164: 160: 159: 155: 150: 149: 144: 143: 138: 134: 130: 129: 125: 121: 120: 116: 115: 111: 107: 104: 103: 100: 96: 92: 88: 85: 84: 81: 77: 73: 69: 66: 65: 62: 58: 53: 49: 48:Knowledge 1.0 46: 45: 39: 35: 34: 25: 19: 4526: 4511: 4479: 4457:Arctic Gnome 4453: 4430: 4428: 4413: 4363: 4331:Visionholder 4320: 4264: 4228: 4167: 4148: 4143: 4140: 4066: 4062: 4050: 4046: 4042: 4006: 3940: 3932: 3918: 3917: 3888: 3887: 3874: 3790: 3771: 3724: 3701: 3687: 3617: 3599: 3586: 3583: 3579: 3534: 3480: 3458: 3436: 3432: 3429: 3426: 3422: 3416: 3379: 3333:User:PockBot 3319: 3302:WP:Chemistry 3286: 3250: 3218: 3200: 3150: 3122: 3084: 3066: 3052: 3018: 3015: 3012: 3008: 2947: 2928: 2925: 2883: 2812: 2753: 2749: 2656: 2652: 2634:, but I use 2627: 2606: 2604: 2582: 2408: 2381: 2377: 2358:activity. — 2220: 2214: 2174: 2170: 2163: 2146: 2054: 2032: 1978: 1945: 1916: 1897:You can try 1887: 1862: 1838: 1806: 1775: 1749:this message 1706: 1689: 1656: 1607: 1567: 1497: 1463: 1422: 1407: 1372: 1311: 1291:WP:CHEMISTRY 1259: 1143: 1109: 1105: 1089: 1045: 1010: 983: 933: 905: 858: 831: 816: 810: 806: 800: 787: 785: 734: 730: 719:User:PockBot 695: 690: 662: 608: 585: 550: 497: 434: 410: 382: 374: 309: 172: 146: 4067:necessarily 4051:lower limit 3903:John Carter 3853:John Carter 3808:John Carter 3742:John Carter 3508:John Carter 3486:OhanaUnited 3351:John Carter 3323:John Carter 3283:5 - schools 3262:14 - france 3208:John Carter 3175:John Carter 3127:John Carter 3087:John Carter 3021:NDCompuGeek 2987:John Carter 2963:John Carter 2950:John Carter 2793:SMcCandlish 2765:WPBiography 2724:SMcCandlish 2691:John Carter 2663:SMcCandlish 2618:John Carter 2605:Please see 2588:SMcCandlish 2362:SMcCandlish 2333:SMcCandlish 2313:SMcCandlish 2294:John Carter 2123:SMcCandlish 2098:SMcCandlish 2064:SMcCandlish 1984:environment 1852:John Carter 1772:IRC meeting 1727:John Carter 1693:John Carter 1594:John Carter 1526:John Carter 1501:John Carter 1470:John Carter 1466:Ban Ki-moon 1460:on VA list? 1192:John Carter 792:Version 0.5 532:Description 194:CORE TOPICS 133:Review team 106:IRC channel 4486:recruiting 4063:importance 4007:importance 3937:Assessment 3806:articles. 3430:instead of 3382:Acidskater 3268:10 - songs 3265:13 - india 3259:31 - album 2563:WP:CORESUP 2494:core topic 2202:importance 1640:. Cheers, 1494:VA tagging 1458:Kofi Annan 1369:Martinbot? 1171:VA tagging 1101:WP:CORESUP 986:WP:COUNCIL 839:Humanities 663:additional 469:WP:COUNCIL 365:/Archive 4 355:/Archive 3 345:/Archive 2 335:/Archive 1 247:for kids ( 4574:Moved to 4424:the index 3992:test data 3731:Rocket000 3411:WP:Cyprus 3392:this link 3277:7 - books 2636:WP:SPORTS 2409:something 2394:v0.7=fail 2390:v0.5=fail 2181:small=yes 1753:Chatzilla 1707:bold font 1385:a message 892:Talk:WVWP 788:excellent 4564:for ONWs 4542:Eclipsed 4466:contribs 4433:ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ 4346:Walkerma 4287:Walkerma 4247:Walkerma 4232:Fainites 4209:ratarsed 4174:ratarsed 4151:Ssilvers 4094:Walkerma 4019:Walkerma 3977:quality. 3835:kingboyk 3830:thought. 3774:Java7837 3752:Walkerma 3721:FA count 3690:Fainites 3646:contribs 3632:log page 3567:Quiddity 3557:Quiddity 3518:Walkerma 3499:Walkerma 3461:Walkerma 3401:Walkerma 3361:Walkerma 3341:Walkerma 3307:Walkerma 3241:Walkerma 3223:WP:ALBUM 3136:Walkerma 3057:kingboyk 2933:Walkerma 2908:kingboyk 2888:Walkerma 2875:kingboyk 2866:Walkerma 2835:Walkerma 2772:kingboyk 2758:WP:WPBIO 2713:Walkerma 2445:Walkerma 2348:Walkerma 2267:contribs 2209:projects 2112:Walkerma 2079:Walkerma 2024:Walkerma 1843:Walkerma 1830:Walkerma 1795:Walkerma 1757:Walkerma 1740:Walkerma 1717:Walkerma 1677:Walkerma 1659:template 1642:Walkerma 1582:Sorbonne 1549:Walkerma 1536:Walkerma 1512:Walkerma 1485:Walkerma 1447:Walkerma 1434:Contribs 1429:MacInnis 1411:Davnel03 1393:Walkerma 1344:Walkerma 1299:Walkerma 1280:ragesoss 1245:Walkerma 1235:Jreferee 1227:Outriggr 1206:Walkerma 1182:Walkerma 1112:Walkerma 1035:Walkerma 991:Walkerma 896:Walkerma 847:Walkerma 811:inactive 582:Comments 474:Walkerma 450:contribs 421:Walkerma 269:PROJECTS 4301:Keith D 4268:Keith D 4072:measure 3659:Keith D 3637:SatyrTN 3606:Oldag07 3588:Keith D 3584:Thanks 3291:Mahanga 3227:WP:SONG 3187:Mahanga 3112:Mahanga 3106:Mahanga 3097:deja vu 2977:Mahanga 2638:and/or 2401:0.5 nom 2058:WP:BOLD 2012:Mahanga 1994:cvgproj 1875:Mahanga 1273:HistSci 1125:PockBot 1097:WP:CORE 803:WP:WVWP 227:TORRENT 80:(stats) 4554:Using 4396:Mdukas 4043:always 3983:nature 3878:WP:UNI 3231:Nifboy 3161:( - ) 2929:should 2897:Eyu100 2853:Eyu100 2844:Eyu100 2816:Eyu100 2748:don't 2746:WP:CUE 2649:WP:BLP 2644:WP:CUE 2640:WP:BIO 2632:WP:CUE 2557:) and 1667:Koweja 1627:Ebyabe 1616:. The 1576:, and 1426:Trevor 1375:Eyu100 1167:WP:1.0 1001:Eyu100 823:WP:1.0 731:Please 483:Rmky87 438:WP 1.0 329:Dates 91:(talk) 76:(talk) 4524:). 4371:Howie 4108:Holon 4080:Holon 3944:Holon 3219:don't 3158:Ammar 3153:table 3095:It's 3075:.... 3053:Other 2708:WP:GA 2628:quite 2561:(for 2555:WP:VA 2553:(for 2259:TheDJ 2195:class 2149:WP1.0 2086:Just 2004:album 1480:WP:VA 1175:WP:VA 1121:WP:VA 1075:David 1073:Poke 680:them. 442:TheDJ 214:(bot) 211:COTF) 72:Guide 61:To do 16:< 4499:talk 4480:The 4462:talk 4400:talk 4394:---- 4350:talk 4335:talk 4329:? - 4305:talk 4291:talk 4283:here 4272:talk 4251:talk 4213:talk 4197:Tito 4178:talk 4155:talk 4112:talk 4098:talk 4084:talk 4023:talk 4011:here 4000:this 3948:talk 3907:talk 3857:talk 3839:talk 3812:talk 3778:talk 3756:talk 3712:talk 3702:See 3684:Help 3672:talk 3642:talk 3435:and 3425:and 3225:and 2862:here 2851:Oh. 2831:here 2829:and 2827:here 2760:and 2750:need 2608:here 2567:Tito 2545:and 2527:WPCD 2505:v1.0 2483:v0.7 2472:v0.5 2433:Tito 2413:Tito 2382:will 2282:Tito 2263:talk 2247:and 2222:Tito 2156:WPCD 2033:does 1942:Time 1903:Tito 1818:Tito 1736:this 1657:The 1638:here 1620:and 1588:and 1357:talk 1332:talk 1099:and 1079:Tito 960:Tito 796:here 735:very 632:Hell 604:Hell 446:talk 417:here 295:talk 273:talk 231:Talk 207:Talk 167:Talk 52:talk 4531:to 4484:is 3622:on 3620:bot 3005:... 2944:... 2378:yet 1791:UTC 1778:IRC 807:all 751:AAA 691:any 507:AAA 249:(t) 209:) ( 154:(t) 137:FAQ 110:IRC 57:FAQ 50:— ( 4562:}} 4556:{{ 4501:) 4464:• 4426:. 4402:) 4352:) 4337:) 4307:) 4293:) 4274:) 4253:) 4215:) 4199:xd 4180:) 4157:) 4114:) 4100:) 4086:) 4025:) 3950:) 3909:) 3859:) 3841:) 3814:) 3780:) 3758:) 3714:) 3706:. 3674:) 3644:| 3553:}} 3547:{{ 3543:}} 3537:{{ 3123:me 2787:}} 2781:{{ 2768:}} 2762:{{ 2569:xd 2530:}} 2524:{{ 2519:}} 2513:{{ 2508:}} 2502:{{ 2497:}} 2491:{{ 2486:}} 2480:{{ 2475:}} 2469:{{ 2435:xd 2415:xd 2404:}} 2398:{{ 2392:, 2284:xd 2273:) 2269:• 2265:• 2255:}} 2249:{{ 2245:}} 2239:{{ 2224:xd 2185::P 2159:}} 2153:{{ 2007:}} 2001:{{ 1997:}} 1991:{{ 1987:}} 1981:{{ 1905:xd 1820:xd 1793:. 1625:-- 1584:, 1572:, 1391:! 1389:BT 1359:) 1334:) 1320:}} 1314:{{ 1276:}} 1270:{{ 1081:xd 962:xd 955::) 950::P 754:}} 748:{{ 510:}} 504:{{ 456:) 452:• 448:• 399:– 395:– 391:– 387:– 380:. 233:) 112:) 78:— 74:— 59:— 4545:¤ 4497:( 4468:) 4460:( 4441:¢ 4398:( 4375:☎ 4348:( 4333:( 4303:( 4289:( 4270:( 4249:( 4211:( 4176:( 4153:( 4110:( 4096:( 4082:( 4021:( 3946:( 3905:( 3855:( 3837:( 3810:( 3776:( 3754:( 3710:( 3670:( 3648:) 3640:( 2798:ツ 2729:ツ 2668:ツ 2593:ツ 2367:ツ 2338:ツ 2318:ツ 2261:( 2187:; 2128:ツ 2103:ツ 2069:ツ 1436:) 1432:( 1355:( 1330:( 1153:- 1055:- 1020:- 915:- 868:- 705:- 618:- 560:- 444:( 297:) 293:( 275:) 271:( 251:) 229:( 205:( 169:) 165:( 139:) 135:( 108:( 54:) 26:)

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