User talk:Ericleb01/Archive 4

October–November 2010

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Wanna Barnstar?

Good morning, fellow editors. We are currently in the process of launching the October wikification drive. If you would like to participate, please sign up here. Please direct any questions to Mono or WikiCopter or the project's talk page. Thank you!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 06:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion

GOCE September 2010 backlog elimination drive progress graphs Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks to all who participated! Several of our top editors were called away to real life concerns during the month (be careful out there, people!). This meant that once again, we did not meet all our lofty targets, but we did come close. Stats Out of 76 registered editors, 45 actively participated. We nearly wiped out the 2008 articles from the backlog—there were only 13 remaining when the drive closed. We reduced the backlog by 725 articles (11.5%), so it was another successful drive. A total of 59 barnstars will be awarded to 40 editors—well done, and congratulations to all. Barnstars If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you edited in the July 2010 GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive, you may have earned rollover words, which counted towards this month's barnstars (except for the leaderboard awards). Any unused word credits will be held over for the next drive, as long as you participated in the September drive. Over the course of the next week or two, we will be handing out the barnstars. Click here to see a list of barnstar winners. We will be holding our next drive in November. You can sign up here. A huge "thank you" to all editors who helped clear the backlog and to others who helped out behind-the-scenes. See you at the next drive, and until then, please continue to help us work through the backlog. Happy editing! Coordinator: ɳorɑfʈ Talk! Co-coordinators: Diannaa (Talk) and S Masters (talk). Newsletter by Diannaa (Talk) and The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 07:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

GOCE copy edit drive

Greetings, the Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invites you to participate in the November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 November at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 November at 23:59 (UTC). The goal for this drive is to reduce the backlog by 10% (approximately 500 articles). We hope to focus our efforts on the oldest three months (January, February, and March 2009) and the newest three months (September, October, and November 2010) of articles in the queue. Sign-up has already begun at the November drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page. Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants, some of which are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive! — The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa (Talk)

Edit on Petitcodiac River

Ericleb01, your most recent edit, [1], which reverted from hectares to square metres, is inconsistent with the source, which said "about 3 hectares". Worse, the source says nothing about a danger to housing from flooding, only to structures like gazebos that were built on low ground. See [2] Michael Glass (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up the units so quickly. Here is another point that you might like to attend to, either now, or after the Featured article process is completed.

• The section on Causeway Controversy contains this sentence:

Option 4 was split into three sub-options, mainly to list possible bridge lengths: 170 m (190 yd), 280 m (310 yd), and 315 m (344 yd).

I think it would be preferable to arrange the same information like this:

Option 4 was split into three sub-options, mainly to list possible bridge lengths: 170, 280 and 315 metres (190, 310 and 344 yards).

This is better than chopping and changing between units, and even with writing out the words in full, it takes less space. Michael Glass (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Petitcodiac River

Thanks for the heads up - I will re read the article and comment on the FAC this weekend. Have been busy but should have time then, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Petitcodiac talk page

Eric, I've replied this time on the article's talk page with details from Rivers of North America and some other thoughts. It's good to conduct some of the detailed side discussion on the talk page (away from the FAC page) so that the delegates who have to decide whether consensus has been reached or not on an article's promotion don't have to wade through quite so much material. Finetooth (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I did have some remaining concerns, but have not (re)read the article lately, and will need to do so first (this may take me a few days). Thanks for asking - did the map / watershed boundaries question ever get resolved? If not, I had thought that asking on the WikiProject Rivers talk page would be a good idea. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be so slow - should get something on the talk page in the next 24 hours. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 backlog elimination drive update

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! GOCE November 2010 backlog elimination drive progress graphs We have reached the midway point in our backlog elimination drive, so here is an update. Participation report — The November drive has 53 participants at this point. We had 77 participants in the September drive. In July, 95 people signed up for the drive, and in May we had 36. If you are not participating, it is not too late to join! Progress report — The drive is quite successful so far, as we have already almost reached our target of a 10% reduction in the number of articles in the backlog. We are doing very well at keeping our Requests page clear, as those articles count double for word count for this drive. Please keep in mind the possibility of removing other tags when you are finished with an article. If the article no longer needs {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, or other similar maintenance tags, please remove them, as this will make the tasks of other WikiProjects easier to complete. Thanks very much for participating in the Drive, and see you at the finish line! Your drive coordinators –The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa (Talk)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor (talk) at 15:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

GAN Second Opinion

Hello there. I noticed that of the people listed at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Mentors, you are one of only two people that explicitly say that you do second opinions, the other being Protonk. Can you please take a look at my first GAN review, Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute/GA1 and do a second review of it. I'd also appreciate any feedback you are willing to give me. Sven Manguard _Talk 19:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Can you head on over and see if it's good to go? I've green-lighted it on dealing with my concerns, but I defer to you on the concerns raised in your review. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

New Testament Christian Churches of America

Hi, I think I got to all your points raised in the GA review. Even if I missed something, it might be time for a further review to see what is and isn't fixed, and to find out if any other problems crept in. I didn't use the cite template, but the references do have titles and access dates. Cheers (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Awww, I thought you could pass it if it met your criteria. If I go through GAN again it will take maybe months :( Isn't there anything else I can do? I don't know how long peer review takes, but what I really want is good article status. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay cool, I put it up for review... I think I found an active editor to request a review from, so hopefully it won't take too long. Thanks (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Sea of Japan GA

Thank you very much for your work on the article--both the serious and detailed review, as well as your help improving the article. Now that I've been through the process once, I am interested in reviewing GAN myself. I probably won't be able to start for a few months, but when I do, I hope you won't mind if I ask for your help/advice/mentoring. Again, sincere thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 05:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much. I owe you a barnstar, I just have to create it... (see Qwyrxian's page for an explanation.) In all seriousness though, I am immensely glad for your help and expertise. You saw things I clearly missed and as a result, the article benefited. Considering that I just found this little gem of a template for Qwyrxian to chew on, I think we might have the pleasure of working together again sometime soon. Until then, the best, Sven Manguard _Talk 05:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)