User talk:Dvandersluis/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

GA 2nd Opinion

We at the GA wikiproject are testing out a 2nd opinion request feature as mentioned on the talk page. If it is possible it would help if the bot had the functionality to add the articles awaiting a second opinion to the GAC report. Thanks. Tarret^talk 23:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

CN Tower‎

The CN Tower article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

GAC to GAN move

For consistency, Wikipedia:Good article candidates will soon be moved to Wikipedia:Good article nominations. A similar change will happen to the /Report subpage, which will affect one of the workings of User:StatisticianBot. Thanks in advance for your help with this transition. Geometry guy 20:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Any idea when this is going to happen? Obviously the bot needs to be updated for this, but not until it occurs, and between the page move and next report run, or else it will clobber the GAC/R page (assuming it is converted to a redirect). So I'd appreciate having as much advance notice as is possible, thanks. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for sorting out these subpages, and apologies for moving the /backlog/items page without realising that this also affects the bot. The main page move requires an admin, and I have asked one. I will keep let you know when it happens, and keep an eye on the relevant pages. Thanks again. Geometry guy 18:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The page has now been moved. Geometry guy 21:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've updated the bot to match. Everything should be working properly (I did a dry, non-updating test), but if something goes wrong (pages don't get updated, bad output, etc.) after the next daily run, let me know and I'll investigate. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 21:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again. As a fellow not-entirely-successfully-Wikibreakian, I especially appreciate your work. Geometry guy 21:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem ;) Wikibreaks are overrated anyways ;) —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 21:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right! Geometry guy 21:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

300-page iPhone bill

Thanks for the detailed comments. I have addressed the changes requested, and most were completed per your recommendations. Dhaluza 03:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that so many editors do not think the article is even notable (based on the votes from the deletion reviews) should cause some alarm. IMO there should be a consensus that an article should even exist before it is considered in the top .3% of articles (i.e. one of the 5000 good/featured articles). I agree it is *approaching* a technically "good" article, but it is currently not stable. Please read some of my comments on the talk page and tell me if you agree or disagree (or if notability is not relevant to goodness, you can ignore them). Rm999 07:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability is related to sourcing, and this article cites dozens. Many editors do not like many articles, but the inclusion criteria are not based on popularity with editors. Dhaluza 11:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Dhaluza. There is no specification that perceived "notability" affects an article's goodness, or even its inclusion in Wikipedia to begin with. Notability depends on sourcing: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject," and this article is heavily and diversely sourced. As such, I do not see a problem with granting this article GA status if it is written to that level. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 18:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still disagree with the article being a GA. Ignoring notability (which was my first objection to the article itself), I think it is misdirected at the topic. I can live with an article existing on the controversy, but it should be about that, not an example of it. You don't call the article on cars "Ford." This article should be renamed, and restructured to reflect the renaming. I have nominated the article to be de-listed as a GA. I'm not trying to annoy you or Dhaluza, but I have a few problems with the article as is (which other editors have agreed with). Rm999 06:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, it's been nominated again at AfD. Feel free to comment at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/300-page iPhone bill (second nomination)‎ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaluza (talk • contribs) 11:28, 18 November 2007 (PST)

Thanks for the notification, I've commented on the AfD. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 14:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania 2009

Toronto Candidate City for Wikimania 2009
Support TORONTO in its bid to become the host city of WIKIMANIA 2009 Visit m:Wikimania 2009/Toronto for TORONTO's MetaWiki page and help build a strong bid.

-- Zanimum 15:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 00:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot for updating Template:Wikification progress

Hi, Dvandersluis. I was wondering if either CbmBOT or StatisticianBot could be used, modified or copied to automatically update Template:Wikification progress for WikiProject Wikify. I noticed that StatisticianBot was proposed for updating Template:Copyedit progress, but this was never carried out; Template:Wikification progress is virtually identical to the copyedit progress template. It would be a great help to the wikiproject to be able to have the template updated automatically. Please let me know what you think. Cheers. – Liveste 05:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I could definitely do this, and StatisticianBot was created with adding more similar tasks in mind. What I would need from you is a complete write up of exactly what you want the bot to do, in full (ie. how the page tracks the stats, etc.). However, I must point out that I am not sure at the moment when I will have time to program another task for the bot, as I have another task already waiting to be added, and my time is quite short at the moment.

In any event, if you would like me to add your task and are prepared to wait, I don't mind taking it out. The process would be something like this: I would add the code for your task to the bot, at which point the task would be listed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. If they accept the task, it would go into a limited trial, at which point it would then be approved (and started as a regular process) or denied. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 14:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. I've just posted a discussion at the WikiProject to see whether or not the template's format should be changed. I'll get back to you within a week (or two). In any case I'll give you information on how the template should be updated then. (By the way, I do have your talk page watchlisted.) Thanks for your help. – Liveste (talk) 06:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 00:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors roll call

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter

Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your copyedit request

On 20 March 2007, you made a request to the League of Copyeditors for a copyedit of Supreme Commander. Because of a heavy backlog and a shortage of copyeditors, we have been unable to act on your request in a timely manner, for which we apologize. Since your request, this article may have been subject to significant editing and may no longer be a good candidate for copyediting by the League. If you still wish the League to copyedit this article, please review this article against our new criteria and follow the instructions on the Requests page. This will include your request in our new system, where it should receive more prompt attention. Finetooth (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

CbmBOT

CbmBOT seems to have taken an error and placed an empty chart of articles remaining for cleanup. (Not critical but the statistics are much appreciated). RJFJR (talk) 13:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the problem and reran the bot manually. As usual, let me know if there's every any problems and I'll take a look. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 15:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 19:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)