User talk:Bluegoblin7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.
1938 stock straphangers.jpg
Bluegoblin7 1938 stock.jpg

Oregonian[change | change source]

Thanks BG7 for being calm during this situation. I fear that this article may not be promoted to GA because of Oregonians behavior and because he's not being specific for the issues on the article. After what I read what he said to Auntof6, that was rude behavior. Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The article still has another five days to run, and can always be extended if needs be. It's certainly getting there. I wouldn't worry about the comments of one user; certainly when closing an article it is based on a consensus, and if a user hasn't backed up their claims then it will hold less weight. I'll try and take a look overnight. Don't worry! If worst comes to worst, we can fix up the article and push it back through the process. Goblin 23:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Barras!
Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Just a heads up that I'm going through the article now. It's a while since I've reviewed anything so it might be a bit rough around the edges... and I apologise in advance for the length. It's getting a proper 'old school' review of the type that I've received for my previous nominations. I'm also attacking it as though it was going for VGA rather than GA, so if you don't make all the changes then that's not a problem. (You'll be able to work out what's what, I hope!) I'll drop you a ping here or on your talk page when I'm done. Goblin 00:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Auntof6!
Thanks. Do what is necessary. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Comments at Talk:Nelson_Mandela#Comments_from_Bluegoblin7. Goblin 01:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!
Done. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Responded. Goblin 03:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man!
Done again. It's starting to get late here in Chicago, so I might fix your other suggestions first thing in the morning and after 4. Thanks and goodnight. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll try and take a look again this evening. Goblin 21:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Pmlineditor!

Please why did you flag my page I was writing about smallworlds avatars there clothes and what details go into it i don't see how it is vandalism!! (16/11/13)

Log in[change | change source]

Hey BG7, I'm TDKR I can't login because when I do it says: "Login error Wikipedia uses cookies to log in users. You have cookies disabled. Please enable them and try again.". I need help. TDKR Chicago 101.

Sorry for not responding sooner; I've not been around all day. I don't know exactly what the problem is, but basically Wikipedia can't place a cookie on your machine to allow it to keep you logged in. You need to go into your browser settings and make sure that cookies are enabled, and that you accept them from Wikipedia. If you tell me what browser you use I'm sure I can find the details, although it will be on Google. Goblin 21:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!
Never mind. Thanks though, I fixed those DYK hooks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Dyk time[change | change source]

I don't understand why you changed this? I obviously know that you're proposing to reduce the time to three days, but I don't think that thread has reached any kind of conclusion. If we need to come to one, then let's continue the discussion. Osiris (talk) 06:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

A consensus seems to have formed (albeit loosely) to alter the time based on whether or not there is a backlog. DYK still has a backlog. I've also thrown in an element of BOLD/IAR because I think it's best for the project and, as I mentioned at ST, I'm not sure that everyone involved is particularly fluent in the DYK process. That said, if you feel a longer discussion would be prudent (I don't when you consider the input it's had), then feel free to BRD. Goblin 12:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!
I see, although I don't quite share your evaluation of the discussion. I would still like to see you respond to the comments made (and explain further if somebody needs to understand something) rather than just going ahead with the proposal. I don't really see a backlog anymore anyway: there are currently only four queues full. When you consider that 3-day intervals will take around 2 weeks to clear that number, and then compare it with the number of queues filled in the past 2 weeks (one and a half), then it seems like we'll run out of queues pretty soon at that rate. Especially since one of our DYK regulars has retired, at least officially. Osiris (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
In an ideal world DYK would not have more than perhaps two queues and run to seven day updates. As it is we have six (Something that was intended to be a short-term solution when we had an extreme surge in nominations) and that is impractical on any number of levels, not to mention the lead time between an article being nominated and appearing on the Main Page. Even a month is, in my opinion, too long. Additionally, I am certain we have been limited in numbers of hooks recently for three reasons: 1, the artificial '4 hook' limit imposed to stop people making hundreds of drive-by nominations; 2, the period when no hooks were moved to queues or reviewed, preventing new nominations due to (1) (And I admit I purposefully avoided tackling these as a reason to reduce the backlog); and 3, the lead time is off-putting for authors that want to see their work promoted on the Main page, particularly as we don't offer credit for making successful nominations. Additionally, I believe that the process is demeaned by the large number of drive-by noms, but that was a decision taken when we set it up to make it viable, and I agree that imposing editing requirements would all-but kill it off. DYK has always been cyclical in nature and had highs and lows, and a pattern has emerged over the last five years that I am all too well aware of. If there was a chance of us running out of hooks I certainly wouldn't be advocating a more frequent updating schedule. However, as it stands, the process is still recovering from a period of administrative neglect (and 'abuse', for want of a better word, from nominators) and I see three-day updates as a vital step for this to happen. The comments raised about a lack of hooks are entirely the same about updating - and if we have a backlog of 20-30 hooks that can quickly amount to months of waiting. For reference, the next round of hooks were nominated between the 8th and 27th July, and will be appearing on the Main page (as things stand) on the 7th September - is that really a reasonable amount of time?
Regarding the ST discussion, I can't see any comments made that I haven't addressed, but if I have missed anything I am happy to make a response. Again, though, I can only come back to my recurring comment that you really need to be involved in the process (Reviewing, nominating and clerking - it's not meant to have specific roles; I have loads of potential hooks but can't nominate them as they traditionally always fall down at one part of the process or another, and I'm uncomfortable about breaking the requirements to not be involved administratively with your own hooks unless absolutely necessary.) to understand the need - I'm trying my best to explain things but there's only so much to be worked out from watching from afar. As soon as the backlog is cleared (I estimate 2-3 weeks) I'm more than happy to revert to every five, or even seven, days between cycles, and would indeed strongly advocate such a move.
Finally, although not completely comparable, enwiki's DYK section has a very high throughput. We're never going to match that, and nor should we, but it provides a useful model as to the direction we should be going in, and what we should be aiming for (albeit scaled down). With some focus and compromises from all sides it shouldn't be hard to create a high-quality process once more, although that will require more than just fiddling with a timer. Goblin 04:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!
So the next round of hooks waited two months to appear on the main page? If I'm looking at it correctly, at that time in July we had all queues full, and you even had a waiting area down the bottom of the nominations page. But with the way things are at present, if we update every five days, then the last queue to be filled (Q3 on 4 September) will appear on the main page on 24 September. That's four queues (20 hooks) in 20 days, at five days each queue. But – for whatever reason – we're not matching that rate in nominations. So purely on mathematical evidence, it will get down to editors seeing their hooks appear within a week of nominating them. The only thing that's likely to change that is a sharp increase in nominations to a point at which, on average, five hooks are being queued every five days. Which is entirely possible, but not likely (if you look at the page histories, activity wasn't that high even in July). That cyclical nature of DYK, though (which you referenced above), is why I suggested allowing the update times to fluctuate with the number of queues that are full. But if we just drop it to 3 days flat, then those four full queues hooks will be gone in 12 days, and I share Djsasso's fear that we'll have one set of hooks stuck on the main page for too long because we ran out. I can't go on anything other than mathematical and statistical evidence. Osiris (talk) 06:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's right - the next round of hooks have been waiting - at the longest - two months, which, as I say, in my opinion is far too long a lead time for articles, particularly to make the process attractive to new contributors who want a fast turnaround. The waiting area and sixth queue were introduced as a good-faith backlog-busting solution, although, again IMO, slightly backfired as it allowed editors to continue suggesting hooks faster than we could both review them and push them to the Main Page.
I really can't argue or disagree with your statistics, because they're not wrong. However, this is where the inherent understanding of how DYK is really required: there is a massive suppressed demand in nominations, and we could easily sustain (for now) daily updates, if the review process was sped up somewhat. Both TDKR and Oregonian, as well as myself, have a large cache of hooks ready in the wings, however, there are (Artificial) limits imposed to keep those to manageable level and avoid the state earlier this year where hooks were going months without review - and then months to appear on the main page.
I am not suggesting a permanent increase to three days - as I have highlighted, seven is more than ideal in normal circumstances. If that means, eventually, that editors are seeing their hooks appear within a week of nominating, then that's excellent - and how it should be, in my opinion. Again, to point to the enwiki process, if we scale that down here then that's how we should be progressing. Five hooks can be queued in five days, quite simply - I'd offer to demonstrate by reviewing and moving the hooks as fast as they come in, but that would be detrimental to the project.
The idea of fluctuating the update time based on the number of full queues is an interesting one, and certainly something that could be looked into. In many ways, I'm taking that idea to the extreme - clearing a backlog down to the manageable, designed level, and then ramping it back up to a higher figure once we get down to one or two full queues. I'm using my knowledge and instinct based on the past five years of the process, which, as I say, is far more insightful (again, IMO) than the statistics which are flawed.
I'm sorry if I'm not putting my point across clearly enough, so please do say if that's the case, and if I get it wrong I'll happily hold my hands up to that fact, and help to find ways to redress the situation. Finally, I'm not trying to WP:OWN the process, just in case you're thinking that. As I'm sure you know, it's just somewhere that I enjoy helping to look after and have done for some time (and helped to set-up), and don't want to see fail, or degenerate into a bit of a wasteland once again. Goblin 17:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Auntof6!

Alright. I'm happy to see you test your plan. Hopefully it will work as you predict. It has been good to get a clearer understanding of your reasoning. One last thing: I don't think you should hesitate to put up your own nominations on the idea that they'll get left behind or that you'll be forced to break a rule. I'm more than happy to queue or clear nominations that you're involved with if you like. Osiris (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks[change | change source]

TDKR Chicago 101 has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them!

Thank you for your contributions for DYK section. Without you, I'm not sure how out of order DYK would be without you. Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Dates format - UK topics[change | change source]

Dear Bluegoblin7

WP:MOS suggests that the applicable date format for UK centric articles, is the DD MMM YYYY format where applicable as against the MMM DD YYYY format.

I have to admit to having a slog at the entire Victoria line article on that (well, quite a few others really as well). Just a gentle and helpful reminder. Love your articles btw. (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The MOS also suggests that articles are not changed wholesale when they already exist in one way or another. It's a bit nitpicky to be honest, especially on an article that hasn't had any major work done to it in a number of years. You didn't have to 'slog' at all. Either way, thank you for your contributions. Goblin 01:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC) I ♥ TCN7JM!

Hey[change | change source]

TDKR Chicago 101 has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them!
I've been a bit busy IRL recently, but things are calming down now. I'll be back when I have time, and I'm always watching. Goblin 01:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!

Is this your bot running logged out?[change | change source]

2A02:EC80:101:0:0:0:2:3 (talkchanges <deleted>WHOISblock userblock log) is making edits labeled "BOT" and the messages it is leaving are the same as your bot's. Is this your bot running while logged out, or is it someone spoofing it? I blocked the IP for a week as an unauthorized bot; I disallowed autoblock, though, so it shouldn't impact you/the bot if you are running off of that IP. Thanks, Only (talk) 11:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

This was indeed my bot running - apologies. I believe that Chenzw has gotten around to resolving it for me - I'm currently travelling so have only limited access. Cheers for your vigilance, and the heads up. Regards, Goblin 22:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1!