User talk:Bluegoblin7/Archive 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
« 1 ← Archive 24 Archive 25 39 »


First of all, welcome back! Second, thanks for updating DYK. I knew it had to be done but couldn't really do it because I'd commented in all of those already. Kansan (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Howdy! Thanks muchly, nice to be back. I'm taking bets for how long until I get into my first "dramaz". (Joke!). No worries re: DYK, was always one of my 'bits' so I'll try and be a bit more active in it. Nice to see it's still going though, it always seemed to die when I disappeared in the past! :D. Regards, Goblin 20:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie!

"Drive-by" nom

I've spent MONTHS working on that article; it's not some shoot at the hip process. And it met, and still meets, all the PGA and PVGA requirements when it was nominated. The reason it was taking so long is that it's really long (2-3x the size of many of our other VGAs), and it took over a month just to get a full review. I will admit that I do disapprove of your action, as it seemed to be you returned and closed it (within 24 hrs. of your return) without getting the full perspective on the PVGAs. Purplebackpack89 02:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment as you'll find that it is not in any way, shape or form directed at this particular nomination and is a general comment on the current state of the P(V)GA processes. If it took over a month to get a full review then it certainly means that it either wasn't ready or should have had the review done before heading PVGA-wards so that you knew what needed to be done on it. That is one of the criteria, somewhere. If you have an issue with my closing of 'your' nomination, there are places to report it. If you're not going to report it, calm down. :-). Regarding your final accusation/attack/whatever, just because I wasn't editing doesn't mean I didn't know what was occurring and it doesn't mean that I didn't drive-by close it either. I fully read all the articles, discussions and follow-up comments outside of the article's talk and the nomination before closing, promoting or otherwise clerking any nomination. Again, there's places to bring it up if you've got an issue with it. And please, don't shout. I've already got a headache from seeing Linkin Park earlier tonight, and it's always nice to remain calm and civil. :-) Goblin 02:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie!
I don't really have a problem with you closing it. I do have a problem with you asserting that I never do anything with regard to the article, because that's clearly not true Purplebackpack89 02:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
That's cool then. :-). But I've never once asserted that you personally have nothing to do with regards to your nominations, nor have I suggester nor even hinted at such a possibility. Once again, I repeat my original comment: this is more a general point than aimed at this article. Clearly I should have just put that in a separate thread instead of saving time and energy and a long-winded discussion... Goblin 02:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!
Even though I am annoyed by your actions, I do not feel the need to report you to anything unless you continue doing it. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Not point making a fuss over it. You can always re-submit it when it's thought to be ready. Take it easy :) Yottie =talk= 18:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Could you perhaps elaborate on what actions it is you are annoyed by? I've been involved with this wiki for over three years now and have made many similar closures in the past with no-one being annoyed by it - as Yottie says, get it up to scratch then re-submit. Many of my (V)GAs went through two submissions. Goblin 20:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!


Dear Bluegoblin7,

You stated (not in these words) that the nominations' purpose was to fix a few minor errors in an already good article and promote it. Most of us that nominate articles think they're good already! Look at the nominators' comments: "I think that this is good for GA", "There are only a few minor issues left", "The issues are all fixed", etc. They have gone over them several times and think that they're fine for the topic. The purpose of PGA and PVGA is to see what needs to be fixed with the article. I did not nominate Zinc when it was this size and expect the reviewers to expand it. Instead, I expanded it to this size then nominated it. I thought that this would pass quickly. Obviously, I was mistaken as there are many informal qualifications that must be met before accepting very good articles.

History of the United States was a huge article. It definitely would not only be nominated for 3 weeks. It has about 160 references and 87kb in the page. About the only thing that I have seen from this action is increased animosity between the nominator and a particular reviewer that is particular.

Your comment about "drive-by noms" does not apply to any article around here. And, instead of helping articles become good or very good, you are closing their nominations! Please be more helpful. The condition of the article determines whether its GA or VGA nomination should be deleted. If the article is in very bad condition, it should be closed. But if it is in a moderately good shape, then the nomination should be kept. It is not the amount of time it has been on review; Simple English is notoriously slow.

I saw you closing several nominations that were "stale". Most of them had gotten several reviews. A stale nomination would be one that had not received a response in over two weeks. I know that this is completely arbitrary.

In conclusion: Please try to help the promotion of the articles instead of closing their nominations. Also, editors nominate articles to get other peoples' input. The editor fixes it up until he/she thinks that it is good. Then they nominate it to get the increased skill of several editors collaborating.


--Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I did indeed state (though not in those words) that "the nominations' purpose was to fix a few minor errors in an already good article and promote it", and indeed if you take a look here you'll see that the criteria agrees with me. Just because the nominator thinks it good doesn't mean it is good, as many of the recent nominations show with lots of changes taking place, thus 'violating' criteria 5 and therefore technically rendering the nomination void. Articles should have the reviews done beforehand (Just because it's not nominated doesn't mean that's not allowed!) and then the P(V)GA should really only ratify and make official the status of the article. You say yourself that there are many 'informal qualifications' required and these should be met before it is nominated - or at least, everything else should. However, you do make a good point and 'go with the process' by not nominating it prior to expansion.
Article length isn't really relevant to the time of the nomination - and two months is just excessive. If it is reviewed beforehand and things are fixed (The whole point of the process!) then it's just a case of 'Yes, yes, yes' - as has happened with nearly all of my (V)GA nominations.
My drive-by nom comment applies to many articles around here - I've been involved in this process for years and assisted with much of the 'overhaul' of it around a year and a half ago - I know it inside out and know a drive-by nom and indeed who the main drive-by nommers are. There's not a problem with drive-by noms per se, but people shouldn't expect things to pass without doing the work themselves. Please don't also ask me to be more helpful when I have written [[Blackpool tramway|many], many, many good and very good articles either - I know how the process works and still do article work. I clerk the pages because, frankly, no-one else does and the process ends up being very biased and unfair (*cough* a two-month nomination - more than enough time to fix issues!).
The wiki is only slow if people sit around and wait for things to happen. There's several users out there who are more than happy to review an article if you ask them, and nominators should be pro-active about their nominations and not sit and wait for things to happen. I've also not staled any nominations recently (In fact ever I don't think with regards to (V)GA...) and only either closed ones that are wildly out or extended ones where the outcome is unclear - as per standard 'practice' for closing of noms.
Articles shouldn't be nominated if they're not close or already at the required level, and a lot of noms are way off the mark and, in all honesty, should be immediately snowed. And kind of: that's more PR rather than P(V)GA... here the articles meet a set criteria already and are just being confirmed or denied.
As I say, I've been doing this for years, please don't try and lecture me on a system that I had a very large role in devising. :-) Goblin 20:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Microchip08!
Most of the changes were minor, like fixing refs, reformatting pictures. Take History of the United States, for example. There was so much work done on the reference formatting. The informal qualifications are what most of the corrections are. There are no major things like adding a missing section or completely rearranging the concent.
This is the review beforehand. I placed copper sulfate at peer review in September and only got one comment for over one month! Peer review is dead here, and I think that you might not be realizing that. Article length was one of the main reasons why zinc, my VGA nomination, failed.
You closed the nomination previously mentioned US history article although the nominator had so many edits on it. Many of them were minor reference fixes and rearrangements. This does not apply to either of your criteria (drive-by noms, major edits).
I know that you have done many very good edits. What I am saying about being not helpful is that some of your first edits after you returned are closing nominations. If you want to revitalize peer review, I have about 300 articles to hand to you. (not a joke) The aforementioned article was being worked on while you closed it; it was not stale.
The articles did meet the required level; it was the informal qualifications that took all of the time. Look at the aforementioned article's talk page and you can see that there was work going on there.
Again, peer review is dead.
In conclusion, make sure you recognize that I do not have any bad feelings toward you. I am trying to tell you that you should be more encouraging to nominators rather than discouraging them from nominating.
Have a nice bright or dark day, --Chemicalinterest (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest everyone drop it. I think BG7 knows what he's done, and honestly it's not something to make a fuss over! Re-nominate if it needs to be, but PVGA isn't somewhere to leave articles forever. That's called Peer Review I believe... Anyway, Happy editing both of you! Yottie =talk= 22:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Last comment on me regarding the Peer Review process. Yeah, it is perhaps slightly staled, but like with (V)GA if you ask for a peer review you'll get one. It is perhaps something that needs addressing wiki wide, and my talk page certainly isn't the place to look at changing that! As for reviewing, I'm happy to take a look if time allows but truth-be-told I'm an awful reviewer at SE level, thus why I stick with clerking. Clerking is always helpful... but now I'm digressing from the point of my reply. If you want to continue this, off wiki might well be best as it's not really helping anything or anyone. Goblin 22:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Microchip08!
BTW, could you take a look at zinc? It is GA nomination and hasn't received a review. Thanks, --Chemicalinterest (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
It sounded clear enough to me BG7 said he doesn't do reviews. However, I'll try and get one done tomorrow. Regards, Yottie =talk= 22:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


Thanks. I have limited Internet access so I cannot do many things like finding refs (other than the ones on enWP). Thanks for your help. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said, it wasn't a case of finding the refs at all, and even with limited Internet access it's still a five minute job - click each link and find the information. P(V)GA & DYK aren't "let's decide we can't do something for xyz reason and get the community to do it for me", it's very much "let's get the community to find some problems and then I'll do all I can to fix them". Also, the whole if I leave a message on your talk page I'll look for a reply on your talk page thing. Goblin 14:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Microchip08!
I click each link and a box appears with "Content Advisor will not allow you to see this website because it has no rating." --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
You'll be able to turn that off in your settings somewhere, or there'll be an ignore button I'd guess. Hey-ho. Goblin 14:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!
It isn't in my power to disable it. My user page may give a clue as to why it is in place. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
There's always a way round them, and I'm only 17... Goblin 15:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!
Yes, I know how to get around them, but what makes it right? The end does not justify the means. The filter was placed there for a purpose. You do not need to reply again. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
So, in that case, don't make a massive song and dance about them being there, and don't get others to do your work for you. Thanks for wasting my time. (Which I think I already said somewhere...) :-) Goblin 15:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!

Biological names

See en:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Animals, plants, and other organisms.

Homo sapiens, not homo sapiens and Brassica oleracea, not brassica oleracea. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, sorry. Was applying the rules of 'normal grammar' (Capitals only on proper nouns as opposed to abstracts, concretes and non-nouns etc) and they seemed to suggest that a capital was out of place there. Thanks for correcting me. :) Goblin 18:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!

Howdy, but...

Hello, dear Bluegoblin7, and about your comment on AN, I think that you should refrain from this for a while please. Sincerely, we all love your help here, but causing another wikidrama really isn't necessary here. (*cough, cough*) Yes, we all know that Purplebackpack isn't being really very diligent either, but it isn't your place to state this suggestion, because it wouldn't be neutral. You already had many clashes with Purplebackpack, so maybe it would be best to step away from him for now. We all missed your presence very much, and would love you to be here - but I just worry for you. I wouldn't like to see you or any other person involved blocked, banned from a certain topic, or worse; so once again, please try to ignore him, even if you see any faults of his. Worriedly, Bella tête-à-tête 09:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree - there's a reason that we have pages such as WP:IAR. If I feel that there is an issue on the wiki that needs bringing to people's attention and needs resolving for the 'good of the wiki' (I.e. this.) then I'll raise it regardless of who the user is and any history that there may or may not be. As long as the issue can be raised neutrally and without bias (Which I believe I have done with this thread) then there is no problem. As for 'time away'... what's 5 months? Apparently not time clearly. Oh, and please don't use the term 'wikidrama' - it's very harsh and labelling a discussion that needs to be resolved actually creates the drama... Goblin 15:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!


[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemicalinterest (talkcontribs)

If someone else wants to 'flag it up' then they're welcome to, but I don't really care. The proposal has been closed by me, endorsed by a further user and endorsed by a bureaucrat, which in my book is a closure. If this user has any further issues, then he knows that he is welcome to come and discuss them either on this page or elsewhere. Cheers, Goblin 16:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

Simple News: Issue 25

The Simple News
Issue Twenty Five
15th November 2010


User Articles
This month sees the return of Simple News after several months of inactivity. The Did you know project is looking for more hooks and active participants.
Wikipedia turns 10, find out where the birthday events are taking place and join us in celebrating the birth of the world's best free collection of knowledge.
Administrator News
Feedback About Subscribe Archives Newsroom

Grunny (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


Team Barnstar.png The Teamwork Barnstar
For Bluegoblin7 for his work on the Simple News team. It is projects like this that help to build a sense of community among all the editors. Keep up the good work Peterdownunder (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Oooh, shiny! Muchly obliged! Goblin 14:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!

Simple News

Hi, I have recently noticed your contributions to Wikipedia:Simple News and I believe there is a conflict with the ideas we both have.

If you have noticed, the latest issue of Simple News was delivered by Grunny. He then developed a bot to do this job in the future. He had taken this first step in doing so as the Wikipedia community realised that your bot did not send out the latest edition of Simple News. Please allow GrunnyBot to become the new Simple News mailer. Thanks. Hydriz (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No. I've been involved with Simple News for two years (Since day 1) and my bot has always been the delivery bot, which was also specially coded and had all of the infrastructure put in place on wiki. The latest edition of the magazine, as I have explained on the bot's request for a flag, was not ready for delivery and has since been delivered with many errors as it had not been completed, thus why it was not delivered by more bot. The latest edition of SN should have been delayed a week, however when I came to do the various tasks required (In my role as the editor-in-chief, as the only person that consistently looks after this area) it had been delivered without notification. If the newsletter is to work then it needs all the contributors to talk to each other before blindly delivering and changing how it all works. I know how SN works, considering I developed most, if not all, of it. Goblin 10:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!
Okay. Understood. But please inform the Wikipedia community about this error. Many Wikipedians were wondering what happened to the Newsletter. Thanks. Hydriz (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Considering it was te first one since July - and it has only ever rbeen periodic without fixed release structure and with fluid dates, I very much doubt that the community wondered where it had gone... So no, I won't be wasting my time. Goblin 10:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!


Sorry on all the conflicts. Too many sections in the discussion...Probably should have just responded to all at once. :) -DJSasso (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Haha, no worries about it! Probably my fault for responding all at once. ;-). Nice to hear a voice of reason saying it's not 'broken'! Goblin 14:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Microchip08!

Good article promotion

That is good. It has been nominated for so long that I was starting to give up hope that I could get at least one chemistry article to a good article. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, keep it up. But both PVGA and PGA aren't things that happen overnight. They're hard slogs and take time, and if it doesn't happen the first time persist and try again. I think all of my promotions have been nominated twice before they succeeded, so it's nothing personal! Look forward to seeing more. Goblin 18:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

Translation of the week

At some point, did you say you were thinking about having your bot update Template:Totw? As of now, it's not being done since EhJBot's been shut down. Kansan (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)