Article contributions (169) – Did you know? (86) – Good article reviews (224) — Barnstars (41)

If I left you a message: please answer on my talk page, else inform me. If you leave me a message: I will answer on your talk page, unless you request otherwise. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives
2004 · 2005 · 2006 · 2007 2008 (Q1 · Q2 · Q3 · Q4) · 2009 Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec

This talk page is automatically archived. Sections with no replies in 1 days are automatically moved.

Contents 1 Time 2 Peer reviewer script 3 Removal of review of book 4 Vancouver 5 2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!

[edit] Time

How do you find time to put as much work into Wikipedia as you do? Are you retired? Alatari (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. I put in a lot of hours this week but have the time. Mostly I go weeks without even logging in. Your list of edited articles and contributions is immense and I couldn't have done the same and kept a job. Alatari (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe I have done more this month but for all the work it doesn't seem I've made any major contribution or improvement. This has happened before; next I go off to other recreations having not achieved a feeling of accomplishment on Wikipedia. Alatari (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Peer reviewer script

Assuming (yes, I know...) that this is the script behind [[1]], is there any chance this script could exclude quotations and template parameters from MOS requirements? I'm getting hits for dateth, engvar, and contractions off World War I, most of which seem to be instances that fall inside quotations and cited titles. Thanks, LeadSongDog come howl 21:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, thank you for the feedback. In the meanwhile, does it have a talkpage of its own?LeadSongDog come howl 22:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Gary. Good luck in the quest for a maintainer. LeadSongDog come howl 20:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of review of book

Hey there. I do not mind the removal of the link (see here: [2]) but may I ask why the link was removed? I assumed that links to peoples book reviews indicated more notability to the subject (since if your books are getting looked at and talked about etc.) but if this is incorrect then I apologize and probably should stop doing so (whenever I come through such articles/essays/reviews I tend to add them to Wikipedia due to me thinking they make the article better... but again if that is not the case let me know). Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for the info.Calaka (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Vancouver

		WikiProject Vancouver
		You have been invited to participate in Operation Schadenfreude to restore the article Vancouver back to featured article status.

- Dear FA Team member, we could use your help if you're available. Mkdw^talk 06:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:

• Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
• Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
• Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
• Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
• Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
• Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew ^talk at 03:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)