User talk:Dvandersluis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

WP:RFBOT

Your bot has been approved for full operations at RFBOT. If you want to add features to your bot at a later time, please repost on RFBOT. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 01:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible Userbox Solution

This is a form letter, please don't reply directly. Do, however, feel free to discuss this solution I've come up with.

I've made an unofficial place for all User Boxes (hopefully) safe from overzealous Admins. Feel free to add any you like, edit any there, or just list your already made userboxes there. Also feel free to edit the main page (the user page) in any way that you think might help. Please note, however, that this is a user page and not an official Wikipedia page, so almost any User Box will be tolerated as long as it's within reason. UserBox 03:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

76 mm Gun

Thank you for the table on 76 mm gun M1.Wikist 12:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Family Guy

I have been trying to discuss this with the anon but he keeps reinserting the same unsourced, misspelled, poorly written section. 3RR does not apply to the removal of vandalism and nonsense. L0b0t 16:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no indication that the inclusion of the contested sections are vandalism, regardless of whether or not they qualify as per the guidelines you quote.

From WP:V:

Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}. You can also make unsourced sentences invisible in the article by adding <!-- before the section you want to hide and --> after it, until reliable sources have been provided. Leave a note on the talk page or edit summary explaining what you have done.

–Dvandersluis 17:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No one ever claimed the section was vandalism, rather that the 3rr rule does not apply to nonsense or vandalism. WP:V states that unsourced claims may be removed by any editor. L0b0t 17:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You are not reverting vandalism or nonsense though, you are reverting what you feel to be in violation of guidelines – I am not sure of the validity of your arguments, but that is beside the point. You are, however, taking one part of WP:V while ignoring others, namely, that other editors have as much right to maintain (by adding necessary sources) the disputed content as you have to delete it, and to have a discussion about the disputed content.

I have created discussion topics at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Verifiability of television episodes and Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Television episodes#Cultural references sections in order to determine the correct response to WP:EPISODE and WP:V that you are citing. You may wish to take part in these discussions.

–Dvandersluis 17:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"editors may object", but they must cite a reference before putting that info back in. Objecting just means "you'll probably piss them off", and in general we should avoid that. Objecting to removal doesn't mean you get to put it back in without a reference. -- Ned Scott 05:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Beretta Cx4 Storm

For the opposite problem, i.e., removal of cited history usage in accord with WP:V of a particular firearm, reverted by L0b0t, see Beretta Cx4 Storm. Yaf 05:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Revised Family Guy Format

we should probably stick to a standardized setup so we need to decide on a set order for plot, cultural references, and notes. Ive noticed you've been putting notes first recently, but it seems the majority of eps have cultural references listed first...so just looking for your input Grande13 16:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yah, I just noticed that too. I had thought that generally notes was first, so I was changing the articles I update to fit that. If we want Cultural Refs first, that's fine by me. Just let me know. –Dvandersluis 16:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah lets just put Cultural references first, as that hopefully can save us some time down the line Grande13 16:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. That's what I'll do from now on. Sorry for the confusion! –Dvandersluis 16:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

CbmBOT

Hi

Is it possible to have CbmBOT automatically calculate the correct percentage on Category:Cleanup by month? Otherwise, it'd be best to remove the figure because 0.00% is simply incorrect and misleading. --Espoo 11:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It was working earlier... I'll take a look at it. Thanks for bringing this to my attention! –Dvandersluis 13:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup taskforce

How are the articles on your desk going? Do you need any assistance? I'm looking for a person to look at the article on British hip hop if you are interested. RJFJR 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors

Dear Cleanup Taskforce member,

I noticed that you've listed yourself as a member who's interested in copy-editing. I'm a member of the League of Copyeditors, a project dedicated to managing the sizable backlog of articles needing a copy-edit. We're always looking for new members, and you'd make a great addition to the project! We've started a participation drive for the remainder of February. If you're interested, you can help clear the backlog by adopting the following goals each week:

• Select an article to copy-edit from the backlog. After your copy-edit, list the article in the ready for final proofread section.
• Select a different article to proofread from the ready for final proofread section.

Thanks, and happy editing! BuddingJournalist 07:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

CbmBOT - question

I use part of your code from User:CbmBOT/Source_code (function wiki_write), and I can't find out why bot always mark new edit as minor (no matter how you set wpMinoredit variable in array). Do you know what could be wrong (hope I explain it well)? Tnx --Slodave 15:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I already find out, tnx anyway --Slodave 15:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What solution did you find? I never noticed it before, but starting February 13th, all the edits by CbmBOT suddenly were being marked as minor. If you could let me know what you figured out, I'd appreciate it. –Dvandersluis 15:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why it marks everything with minor, but I know the solution, just unset the wpMinoredit value from posted form data (like unset($form_data['wpMinoredit']);) and it works. --Slodave 16:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yah, I actually just figured that out myself and updated my bot. Strange that it was never a problem before. Thanks! –Dvandersluis 16:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comma

Hey, I know this is a dumb thing to argue about, but why did you remove that comma in Day Break? That is a proper comma.. diff Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 19:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC) The reason I removed it is because "Los Angeles Detective" is an adjective, modifying "Brett Hopper". By way of example, if we were to use the adjective "red" to modify "apple", it would be "red apple", not "red, apple". The comma is only used to separate more than one adjective from each other, not an adjective from its noun. –Dvandersluis 22:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Detective part describes the Brett Hopper part.. The red and apple is not a correct analogy. An example of an analogy would be American Series, Quantum Leap... Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 23:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Tenacious D

Thanks for the LoCE work dude. Is there anything you think I should do? Tenacious D Fans (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Right now I'm working away at the article, section by section. I won't have time to do the whole thing – at least, not now. If you want, feel free to pick up where I leave off (I'm almost done with the Beginnings section, and likely will move on to TV series (1997 – 2000)).

–Dvandersluis 20:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar...my first one! Yay! Galena11 20:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I think you definitely deserve it, due to all the hard work you do for LoCE. It was the first I've ever given out, too ;) —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 20:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

5th Grader

I really have to defend my edit of the page. It's tighter and easier to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BudMann9 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to defend your edit, please do; here's my reasoning against it:

1. I don't think that removal of information is equitable to "tightening". It is one thing to tighten the prose, it is another to remove content. There is no need to conserve space, if this is a consideration.
2. Paragraphs should be for separating content. Especially in the lead, there is no need to separate the game summary paragraph into three.
3. The Manual of Style states that numbers between zero and ten should be spelled out in words.
4. "Classmate" is encompassed with quotes as the child is not the contestant's actual classmate, but a title bestowed for the purposes of the game.
5. There are various grammatical mistakes introduced by the edit.

As such, I have reverted, though I have incorporated some of your changes. I'd implore you to read and respond to this before just reverting back. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 01:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I won't have a wiki-showdown over it. Classmate doesn't need to be in quotes. Common sense tells us the two people are not actually classmates. Associated Press says numbers 10 and higher use the number. I didn't tighten to conserve space. My tightening made it read better. I'll look at it when I can.

Agreed, I don't want to have a showdown either. The current changes are acceptable to me too. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 13:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the invite but I can now live with the word classmates however it's presented, and yes that was me before of course, I guess I forgot to log on. Good luck in all your Wiki ventures. I won't do the four tildes thing. I like how it ends up getting signed automatically.

GACbot

Daniel -- thanks for the offer to work on GACbot (if that's what it would be called). I will post a note at the GAC talk page to suggest people post on a subpage of mine to define functionality. If you'd like to move that to a subpage of yours, to keep your bot material together, please do.

I'll start it with the notes from the botreq page and will add some more thoughts. Thanks again -- I think this will be very helpful, and I really appreciate your time. Mike Christie (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have now created that subpage with some more detailed specs: I fixed the link above but it's also here. I also posted a note at GAC talk a few minutes ago, so with luck we'll see more input. If not, I think what I've spec'd would be very useful just as it stands. Mike Christie (talk) 02:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out to me. I will take a look when I get a chance. In terms of the name, I am thinking to create a generic bot for statistic keeping, as I already have three projects which are in that genre that need a bot, and as such would just like to create one umbrella bot. If I don't do this, though, GACbot is as good of a name as any. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 15:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

LoCE

Hey there! Notice you just archives some "done" items from the proofreading page. Where is this archive? Otheus 02:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The archives are available via the box on the right side at the top of the Proofread complete section. The current month's archive is always at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Completed Articles Archive. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 12:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

2007 Transaviaexport Cargo Airline Ilyushin Il-76 airplane crash

In response to your comments regarding the GA nom of this article, I've made a number of copyedits to hopefully improve things, and posted a summary and comments regarding these edits to the talk page. I've also posted a separate section to the talk page regarding the renaming to conform the article to relevant project naming guidelines. I would appreciate it if you'd take another read of the article and give me additional feedback. Thanks! Akradecki 20:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for letting me know. I do not have time at the moment to do another critical read-through, but should be able to so sometime tomorrow, if not tonight. I will let you know (via the article's talk page), when I have done so. By the way, I think the article rename was a good one. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 21:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the second review you did, per above. I have now fixed the points raised there, and I'm pretty sure that it's ready for GA status - but of course, that means you have to read it through again. Hopefuly this time, you'll like what you see ;-). Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hold on The Price Is Right (US game show)

I'm about halfway through making the suggested changes to the good article candidate you reviewed. Unfortunately, real life has taken over the past few days, so I haven't been able to complete. I expect to have some time this weekend, so if you wouldn't mind extending the hold a few more days, that would be helpful. Thanks! —Twigboy 13:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine by me, however, if someone else sees the hold has expired, they can speedy-fail it. If that happens, let me know when you're done and I'll speedy-pass it. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 14:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a note on the WP:GAC page that I've agreed to extend the hold through the weekend. I don't know if this is "allowed", per se, but it's the best I can do. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 14:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, DV, for the consideration. I think the article is ready for your perusal. —Twigboy 06:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to review and performing some much-needed last steps. (Sometimes is gets a bit difficult to think of ways to clean up the copy when you've looked at it so long!) References are, indeed lacking, and hopefully we can shift the focus to cleaning that up. I appreciate your time and consideration!—Twigboy 13:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 13:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Gol 1907

Hi Daniel, thanks again for the thorough and constructive evaluation, and the GA pass grade. I really appreciate all your work and feedback. After spending some time (as you can see) fixing the small stuff, I realized that your point about the Embraer crew's detention is actually very serious and harder to fix. Historically, we built the article on the fly as events unfolded in real-time, and now in retrospect (even though the final report is not in yet) it is clear that the Embraer crew's detainment, interview and status is improperly located before the collision is even described. I have started relocating it into a new section, and unfortunately it's not a trivial task, as there is a lot more there that was collected on the fly and needs to be re-arranged and reworked for the current perspective as well as the new arrangement. Now I am stuck dealing with it, and it may take a while to re-optimize. Hopefully the end result will have a better and more logical flow. I hope you don't mind if I alert you when I think the article is stable again, and perhaps you can review it again and comment at that time. Thanks, Crum375 15:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I did notice that you had moved that section out into its own section. I did feel, however, that the article has become worthy of GA status, hence the pass. If you would like me review it again when you have completed your changes, I'd be glad to, but note that there is no need to for GA purposes. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 15:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that technically the GA status stands unless someone votes to revoke it, but I still feel that due to the fairly large change caused by the section move it would be useful for you to review it. Thanks for agreeing to re-review - I'll alert you when I feel reasonably comfortable with the result. Crum375 16:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's just about there. If you are so inclined, please have a look. Since your reference GA revision, I have replaced the lead with a simplified/tightened version, and did a lot of copy-editing and consistency fixes, mostly driven by the creation of the separate "Detention and charging of the Embraer's crew" section. I also did a general cleanup, since the version we had was gradually built up as news events were unfolding, and over time became less coherent. Hopefully you'll find this version better, but feel free to highlight any problem you see. Thanks again for your work. Crum375 01:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:StatisticianBot

Opps, my bad! The username was reported to AIV as a username violation (obviously because it has the word bot in it) so I blocked it. I never realised that an actual bot could even be reported! I assumed that there would have been a fail safe that would prevent them being reported. I'll take the blame for that one! Cheers! SGGH 18:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for letting me know. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 18:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed about a failsafe, not sure if there is and I just did something wrong, or if there isn't altogether. Perhaps this is something to look into. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 18:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I don't know enough about the bot system to be honest. I left a message with User:Cometstyles about reporting the bot, but not in a nasty way but just to let him know what happened. A user so daft as to report a bot to AIV can hardly be criticised by an admin so daft as to block it! lol SGGH 18:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)