User talk:Dvandersluis

Could you take a look at this discussion about combining the "on review" templates into one. I think it will break the operation of StatisticianBot. Would it be an easy fix? Geometry guy 12:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear about what the (proposed?) change is. Is it just a new template for talk pages? SB only parses one page -- Wikipedia:Good article nominations -- and then writes to three other pages with the results. It doesn't parse each nomination's article or talk page. Is there going to be a change to the GAN page? —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 15:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there's a proposal to change the GAN page review templates as well: see User:David Fuchs/layout for the proposed template. Geometry guy 17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So pretty much instead of the individual GAOnHold/GA2ndOpinion tags, there'd be one template with a parameter? If that's the case, the tags wouldn't be recognized when put to use, but it probably shouldn't be too much work to fix the bot once there is a finalized "syntax" for the template, assuming that there isn't one already. Is the new template not going to be given the article name like the old ones do? I'd keep the code to look for the old style tags too so that they are still recognized if used (although maybe put an entry in the malformed nominations list in that event). —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 18:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You got it. Thanks for raising the issue about the article name. I'll let you know when the template is finalized.

I should also probably mention that there are plans to completely automate WP:GAN. If that happens, your input would be very welcome, but I appreciate you are not active on Wikipedia these days, and understand if you would prefer someone else to take over the handling of GAN/R in that event. Geometry guy 19:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting about automating GAN. I'd be glad to give input when or if that occurs, but I don't know if I'd have the time to take on automation myself. I have no problem continuing to maintain GAN/R, though. In any event, let me know when the GAN template changes are finalized so that I can update the bot. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 19:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, but the way we are planning to automate GAN will completely change things, because the GAN page itself will be static, and simply transclude data from elsewhere. Does StatisticianBot parse the html or the wikisource of the page? The html will not change much, but the wikisource will contain no useful information. Geometry guy 19:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, actually. SB currently works by parsing the wikisource, because, at least in the current page format, it makes things a lot simpler to parse. That being said, it's not like I am unable to change it to parse HTML. It doesn't sound like you're near this point at the moment, so when you are, let me know and we can evaluate how to proceed there. I'm rather interested in knowing details when they are finalized, though! —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 20:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I won't spoil the surprise, but just to hint at the plan, see Template:CF. Geometry guy 20:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the time you added "intensity ratings" and icons to the rides in List of roller coasters at Canada's Wonderland, Canada's Wonderland has apparently changed the ratings scale. There is a summary table at the bottom of the article that lists what are apparently the current ratings, though without any citation, I don't know if they're correct. I changed the rating icons for each affected ride (most of them were) to reflect this summary table. Now the main problems are: 1. No "5" icon next to those rides rated 5, and 2. No citations. I was hoping you could take care of both issues, as you were the one who added the icons in the first place. --Skylights76 (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yah, I was aware last year that the ride ratings had been changed from 1-4 to 1-5, however, I haven't been to Wonderland in a couple years now and didn't have/couldn't find the proper information to make an image for "5" (and change 1-4 as necessary if they have been redesigned), or update to suit the new rankings (also, I don't seem to have the original files for the icons anymore, it seems). The original information came from a Wonderland park map a number of years ago; I don't know if current maps contain this information anymore. The other option would be to collect the information from the plaque that each ride has, but this obviously wouldn't be possible until the park opens, and I'm not sure how it'd be properly sourced, anyways. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 19:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Daniel. I promised to get back to you in a week or two ... this was in November 2007. I sincerely apologise for not getting back to you more quickly. I previously asked if you were able to update Template:Wikification progress. Please let me know if you are still interested in having either CbmBOT or StatisticianBot update it.

I previously mentioned a proposal for changing the format of the template. This was finalised just over a week ago. The new format of the template is based on the table at Category:Cleanup by month, with only a few formatting differences. Most notably, each month on the table links to a corresponding "Wikify by month" category: e.g., "March 2008" links to Category:Wikify from March 2008; the # of articles listed to the right reflect the number of articles in that "Wikify by month" category. The "Total" figure at the bottom is the sum of the numbers above it. The "Updated on ..." sentence above the table is itself updated using a timestamp (five tildes).

Now that the template format has been finalised, I should be able to respond to any queries within a day or two. Let me know if you need more information. Cheers again. – Liveste (talk • edits) 10:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Liveste. I actually had completely forgotten about this, so don't worry about taking a while to get back to me. I can still do this task (it would fall under StatisticianBot -- CbmBOT really was supposed to be completely replaced by StatisticianBot a while ago, but I have yet had a chance to do so), and it seems like the output you are looking for is pretty close to Category:Cleanup by month so it shouldn't be too hard. I can't say right now when I can start working on it, but possibly within the next week or so; as long as patience is no problem on your end, it's fine for me to take this on.

Is it accurate to say that Category:Articles that need to be wikified is an appropriate place to determine all the "... from [month]" categories that are being counted? I need to have some sort of central place for the bot to pick up the categories it needs to investigate, and that appears to be it, but I want to make sure. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 16:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd have some nerve to say that patience would be a problem. Take whatever time you need. You're correct in assuming Category:Articles that need to be wikified contains the "Wikify by month" categories. Only the monthly categories should be included in the table. Category:All pages needing to be wikified should not, nor should any of the articles in Category:Articles that need to be wikified itself (take care not to confuse the two categories).

I should inform you that the very day that I got back you, a new feature of categories appeared that displays the total number of member articles (for some reason, it doesn't work with the "Wikify by month" categories). {{PAGESINCATEGORY}} is a proposed magic word that could parse this number onto a page, but I'm not sure if this would work with the "Wikify by month" categories, or on the wikification progress template. I'll try to keep you apprised of developments. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 00:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yah, I was asking about that category as a "resource" for finding the montly subcategories. So it looks like I had the right place.

Interesting about {{PAGESINCATEGORY}}. I don't quite understand how it works, or how it can be used. However, it seems that categories now report the number of pages contained within them, such as "The following 200 pages are in this category, out of x total" ... except for some reason this isn't showing up on the wikify by month cats?? Strange. If this stat is given, it make the bot need to parse a lot fewer pages, as it doesn't need to count each category page, it can just take the number from the stat. But if it's not showing up on the wikify subcats, for whatever reason, it might not be safe to try to use it... —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 03:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Is CbmBOT running? RJFJR (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes; however, the text on category pages that displays how many articles are on the page changed so the bot couldn't pick it up (it determined that there was an error). I've fixed it to use the new text and manually ran the bot, and it will start running as normal tonight. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 02:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you check the bot again, please. Sorry to have to keep bugging you about this but I value the statistics it displays. RJFJR (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's no bother. Obviously the bot runs for a reason which isn't fulfilled if it doesn't update properly or at all. It seems like the problem was that an article was removed from a category between the time that the bot found the link to go to the next page of the category and when it tried to go to that next page. As far as I can tell, as April 2006 now has less than 200 articles, the second category page no longer exists, and the bot could not find any articles on a page that it thought should have articles so gave an error and gave up. Freak occurrence, obviously. In any event, I've run the bot manually so it should be updated now. I have also added functionality to the bot to send me an email when it runs into an error so that I can take a look at it quicker (but feel free to continue letting me know here if something's up). —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 17:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

CbmBOT seems to be stuck again. Are they making frequent changes to the layout tha keep throwing off the parser? (I think they added a feature that tell how many total articles there are in the category, an overdue feature in my opinion.) RJFJR (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my last update left a syntax error in the bot, which caused it to obviously not be able to run (and therefore not email me, either). It's fixed now. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 06:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the bot is superseded by the magic word {{PAGESINCAT:category}}. So the entire table can be updated real time if coded with some magic... No? Renata (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No idea. If you find out, let me know and I'll shut it off :) —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 14:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I added auto generated table on the talk page of the category. The bot is still more accurate, especially with the total. Renata (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well you might want to start a request for comments or something about if the bot should be superceded or not, but in my view, the big benefit of the bot is that empty categories will be automatically pruned, new categories will be automatically added, and it doesn't sound like you're sure about the accuracy of the magic word. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 05:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly care. I was passing by, noticed something interesting, dropped my 2 cents, and leave it up to you to decide what to do as I am moving along :) Sounds like I have ADD... Anyway, thought you should be aware of alternatives. Renata (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:David Fuchs has (somewhat unilaterally, but the change may stay) changed the usage of templates at WP:GAN, along the lines which I mentioned to you a month or so ago: this is the diff. Could User:StatisticianBot also support this format for second opinions and holds? I promise to report to you if this change is reverted or there is any other change. Plans for complete automation of the page are still in the minds of several people, but there are technical and editorial obstacles still to be addressed. Geometry guy 22:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've noticed that the bot is having a hard time with the oldest articles at GAN. It seems to have problems recognizing the templates, and the list needs fixing after every bot update (today, only 4 of the 10 oldest that it identified were actually unreviewed). Is this something that can be fixed, or is there a problem with recognizing the templates? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:StatisticianBot#Issues_at_Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations.2Fbacklog.2Fitems. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I know that the GAN templates changed and that is what is causing this problem. Unfortunately, I have had next to no time to do anything lately, and updating StatisticianBot fell by the wayside. I will try to get it working again ASAP, but I can't say at the moment when that will be. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 12:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you check CbmBOT and see if it is reporting double the number of tagged articles? RJFJR (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. As mentioned in the CBM talk page, the format of the page seems to have changed again, which caused there to be two links per category, which caused the bot to double up the stats. It's been fixed now and I've manually re-run the bot, so the page should be accurate again. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 16:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The cleanups by month page is reporting "As of 08:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC), 35,128 articles were tagged for cleanup, or 11.71% of the English Wikipedia's 300,000 articles."

The number of total artiles seems to be off causing the percentage to be off. Was this just something where the bot read the number of articles wrong? RJFJR (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Special:Statistics seems to have changed formats, so the place where the bot was pulling the total before is no longer valid. I've updated the bot to be able to read the new format. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 20:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you possibly make a new page for Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report that shows all the GANs on one page, chronologically, without them being sorted in categories? Gary King (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

How come the bot didn't run on yesterday? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

More information Hi there Dvandersluis! ...

Hi there Dvandersluis!
	Please accept this invite to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving articles to GA status while working with other users. We hope to see you there!

Close

- -The Spooky One (talk to me) 06:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

StatisticianBot did not run the last two nights.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I'm working on the issue now. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 18:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any edits since this response.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I know; I haven't had the time to fix it yet and unfortunately the bot stopped being able to write to wikipedia (I guess because of changes in the wikipedia code) so I need to get that working again. When I've done so, you'll know. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 17:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that Daniel, and thanks for all your efforts to support the GA process. Geometry guy 09:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The GAN/R updates are still greatly missed (certainly by me). I hope you will be able to fix it soon! Geometry guy 21:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I know, I apologize I haven't had time to get it fixed yet. I've been incredibly swamped with work and have had no time to do anything else :/ —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 05:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I sure do miss your bot, and I am so sorry you are overloaded with work. I can see that I have taken for granted the many services you have provided. I am very appreciative of whatever time you can spare. With many thanks for all you have already given, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to set StatisticianBot to run nightly?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It should run tonight/this morning -- let me know if it doesn't or if it doesn't appear to be updating properly. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 06:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It should have run by now, I believe. It hasn't.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had a type in my cron job that caused the bot to not run properly. I've run the bot manually, and it should start automatic runs tomorrow morning. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 16:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The bot has been running daily for the last two weeks or so until last night. It did not run.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the server that the bot is hosted on might have gotten rebooted around the time the bot was supposed to run, which obviously would stop bot execution. It should run tonight, but let me know if there's a problem again. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 07:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Something is odd about the sort order in the summary of articles remaining at Category:Cleanup by month. I checked some of the headings in the monthly cleanup categories (I think I've seen this set wrong be a problem before) and they look OK. It doesn't seem to be sorting first by year. Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I've fixed the sorting and reran the bot, it should be fine now. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 14:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciate the summary and all the hard work you go through to keep the bot running. RJFJR (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Did Statisticianbot update Category:Cleanup by month? Seems to be a day behind or so. Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A library file on the machine the bot is running on disappeared for some reason :/ Everything should be up again and I ran the bot manually. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 18:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Risk game map.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Risk game map.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Risk game map.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Daniel. I hope your work isn't continuing to overload you, as it was in April. I believe many GA reviewers are missing StatisticianBot's wonderful analysis of the nominations page. I certainly am. If you have time to fix the problem, it would be much appreciated. If not, thanks again for your contribution. Geometry guy 20:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi again: a request has been made for a bot to continue your work. If you have or are able to make your code open source, that would be an enormous help. Thanks, Geometry guy 23:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Geometry guy. I want to sincerely apologize to you and to the entire GAC community for abandoning this bot. For whatever reasons, my life has become rather stressful and busy over the past year and I never did get a chance to come back to get StatisticianBot running again, and I feel bad for that, as it was not my intention to create a bot to solve a problem for you and then disappear when it needed repairs.

That being said, I would appreciate it if you could give me a couple days to try to get the bot up and running again. I fully understand that there has been a breach of trust due to my disappearance and thus if you'd rather have someone else take over the bot, I understand and would do my best to work with them as necessary/desired, but if it is okay with you, I would like to try to get things going again. Please let me know.

—Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 16:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can fix it in the next few days, that would be great!

For the long term stability, though, it would be really helpful if you could release the code under a free license. In particular, there are plans in place to automate GAN (see User:RFC bot/Sandbox 2 for the demo) and the format may change slightly, interfering with the bots ability to parse the page. Any comments you have on this would be welcome. Geometry guy 19:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've got my own bot framework which StatisticianBot is built on already freely available via GitHub, at (though that's not completely up-to-date at the moment). When I'm done fixing up StatisticianBot, I can probably put the code for managing GAN up on GitHub as well.

That's interesting having a bot generate GAN. Where is the data being collected from, is there somewhere that I can read about what RFCBot is doing? As long as the wikitext it generates (which is what StatisticianBot parses) is roughly similar to the current incarnation, it shouldn't be too hard to keep it in line. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 19:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe it looks for article talk pages transcluding Template:GA nominee, then parses the template it finds there. But you can see for yourself, as the code is at User:RFC_bot/goodarticles.php. Discussion of the proposal can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_13#Automatic_listing_of_nominees_at_WP:GAN. Geometry guy 20:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy work. I've added a (perhaps small, perhaps big) request on my user talk page. Geometry guy 20:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am glad that the bor is working but I have to report that it is not working corrcetly. The bot keps re-adding Greco–Persian Wars to the top of the list of unreviewed artciles, but in fact that article has been under review since 19 October. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made a change to how GAReview tags are handled so that the bot still tries to figure out what's going on with a malformed tag, which is what was going on here. Tomorrow's run should properly handle that nomination. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 19:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - seems to be working fine now. Thanks for your hrad work. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi - me again, the bot isn't picking up the fact that Bill Harry is under review and on hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason it wasn't picked up is that it's GAReview template has a status of "hold" instead of "on hold", which the bot doesn't look for because it's not one of the specified status options listed on the template page. I've updated the bot to accept just "hold" so Bill Harry will be properly evaluated next time the bot runs. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 13:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Dvandersluis! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 10 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Lee Seng Tee - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just a note to say that the bot didn't produce the GAN reports this morning. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, the server that the script is run from was upgraded over the weekend and it looks like a library that the bot was depending on wasn't installed. I have contacted the admin and hope to get the bot back up and running ASAP. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 20:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The bot should be working again now. I ran it manually for today and normal automatic execution will resume overnight. Sorry for the inconvenience! —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 21:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your work, much appreciated. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, has the bot fallen over? No report today at 09:00 (UTC). –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The MediaWiki API was updated; I'm working on getting the bot working again. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 07:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the bot and ran it manually. Regular operation should resume tomorrow morning. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 15:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The listing format for WP:GAN has been changed, which may affect StatisticianBot's operation. harej 21:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Dvandersluis hasn't edited since 7 June. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I was contacted by email by Geometry guy and harej about the GAN format change. I will be updating StatisticianBot as soon as I have a moment to do so. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 19:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for fixing it! Geometry guy 15:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You're fast, Geometry guy! I just posted a message about it on WP:GAN's talk page. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 15:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That +36,450 on my watchlist was hard to miss :) Geometry guy 15:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm glad I could get the bot working again quickly; I know it went on a kind of long hiatus last year which I still feel badly about. Please let me know if you come across any issues with the update, but as far as I am aware, it should be working exactly the same as it was before the page format change. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 15:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you could fix it quickly too. We're all volunteers here, so thanks are more important than criticism! I'll let you know if I spot anything amiss, as I'm sure others will! Geometry guy 15:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dvandersluis. I was wondering if there was a way to add the number of reviews current Good Article reviewers have previously conducted to the bots tasks. There have been a number of socking accounts recently, plus it would be good to keep an eye on inexperienced reviewers. Some discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Identifying Socks/Inexperienced Reviewers. If this is not possible I can ask at Bot requests. Unfortunately I know nothing on how these things work. AIRcorn (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The WP:GAN page has been updated and now StatisticianBot (talk · contribs) does not create the report correctly. Is it possible to update the bot to fix this. AIRcorn (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, sorry I've been out of contact. Life has been really busy and Wikipedia is unfortunately low on the priority scale. From what I can see, the bot seems to still be running, and updating the report page; I didn't check the page for validity though - what is it generating incorrectly?

I'm thinking it might be best to throw the source up on github when I get a chance so that someone else can take over when the bot needs to be updated in the future as, despite my best intentions and liking being involved with the project in this capicity, I don't seem to be able to make time for it quickly nowadays. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 22:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the response. The format of the WP:GAN page was changed. Sub-sub categories were made for the Art section. Basically "Music" was divided into Album, Songs and other while Episodes were split out of TV. Statistician bot doesn't seem to recognise these changes and is not adding any articles categorised as Art to the report or the backlog pages. I have been conversing with Madman (talk · contribs) at the Bot requests board Wikipedia talk:Bot requests#Bot owner not responding and he may be willing to take over the bot. Recently more changes have been proposed for the format of the GAN page WT:GAN#Merging sub-sections, which if instigated will probably cause more problems for the bot. AIRcorn (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This diff is of the change AIRcorn (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you happen to know what the next set of new changes might look like structurally (ie. in terms of the structure of the GAN page, which the bot uses to parse nominations). At the moment, the bot just knows to look two levels deep but assuming that the hierarchical structure remains somewhat the same, I should be able to update it to be able to parse however many levels of depth the page has, which should prevent future restructurings from distrupting bot activity. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 23:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If you don't mind, lets take this discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations - StatisticianBot section (the direct link isn't working for some reason) so it can all be present in one location. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 23:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Worked great, thanks for updating it. I, and many others, find it very useful. It looks like the next set of changes might be enacted soon. They just move around a few of the lists and merge some others. The level headers will just be 2 and 3 (ironically this change might have fixed the previous problem). I have copied the currently proposed restructuring below (level 2 headings in bold, level three in italics). AIRcorn (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Agriculture, food and drink: Agriculture, food and drink
• Art and architecture: Art and architecture
• Language and literature: Language and literature
• Engineering and technology: Computing and engineering · Transport
• Geography and places: Geography · Places
• History: World history · Royalty, nobility and heraldry · War and military
• Mathematics: Mathematics
• Music: Albums · Songs · Other music articles
• Philosophy and religion: Philosophy and Religion
• Natural science: Biology and medicine · Chemistry and materials science · Earth sciences · Astronomy and physics
• Social sciences and society: Culture, sociology and psychology · Education · Economics and business · Law · Media and journalism · Politics and government
• Sports and recreation: Sports and recreation
• Theatre, film and drama: Episodes · Other theatre, film and drama episodes
• Video games: Video games
• Miscellaneous:

StatisticianBot should be able to work properly on the page regardless of reorganizing the categories, as long as the headers go sequentially as previously discussed. If you want, we can put the new format on a sandbox page and let the bot take a test run at it, but again I do not foresee any issues. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 16:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Have made a test page here User:Aircorn/GAN if you want to give it a try. AIRcorn (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be out of town for most of the weekend, I'll try to run a test on Sunday if I can, otherwise I'll probably have a chance on Monday. At a glance, however, I do not anticipate any issues. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 17:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Dvandersluis. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hi, the bot didn't run this morning. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.

If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)