User talk:Dom497

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Nuvola apps personal unisex.png Nuvola apps filetypes.png Symbol GA & FA.jpg Nuvola apps kedit.svg Crystal Clear app korganizer.png Original Barnstar Hires.png
User Talk Promoted Content Contributions Guestbook Awards


I've reported the user to the edit-warring noticeboard, so for now, let's not undo their damage until this is settled there. We've got enough evidence that we've tried to alert the user and reason with them, but obviously they're not listening, so I don't think this will WP:BOOMERANG on us. --McDoobAU93 18:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

GAN Drive[edit]

Good Morning! It has been a while since our previous GAN drive in March, and I'm interested in seeing it coming later this year, perhaps Nov-Dec. I've already discussed it with other people. And since you've helped organize the past few drives, perhaps you can help with this one? Thanks,  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 13:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@TheQ Editor: Hey there! I had someone else ask me the same question ago 3 months ago so I'll just copy and paste it: "Ok, here we go. You probably haven't noticed what has happened over the past 2 drives. Both were a result of me trying to revive the drives. The first drive was a good success (but still not great) and the 2nd drive was an absolute failure. Setting up a drive and figuring out how to run it (rules, how to attract people to participate, etc) isn't easy and setting up each drive did take quite a while to set up. After reviewing the 2 drives I came to the conclusion that the time I spent in running/setting up the drives didn't pay off (in terms that the results weren't the best) and therefore will not be setting up any more drives as I have better things to use my time for. Sorry." Something I forgot to mention in that reply was that in the second drive, the backlog was larger at the end of the drive than it was at the beginning (hence the "absolute failure"). In addition to this, I'm going into Gr. 12 (can't screw this year up!), so I don't want to get into things that will very time consuming. Sorry.--Dom497 (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, so what you are saying is that you are not going to organize a drive again. But can I get a go? You didn't fail. You just found ways that didn't work. Cheers,  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 14:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@TheQ Editor: Yes, I will not be organizing any future drives at this time. When the point of a backlog drive is to REDUCE a backlog but in the end the backlog is LARGER...that's a fail and a half. Also, you can organize it if you want but I strongly suggest you try to find a co-coordinator. Even before that, I suggest you send out a mass message to find out who would be interested in another drive (if you don't know how to send out a mass message let me know and I'll show you). If less than 15 people willing to be part of the drive, I would think twice about spending time organizing the drive.--Dom497 (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
So, how do I send a mass message? Thanks,  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 14:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@TheQ Editor: I just realized you need to be approved to send mass messages (I'm surprised that there are only 32 non-admins that have this right, including me). I'll send it out on your behalf.--Dom497 (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@TheQ Editor: Ok, I know 100% I used to have a mailing list set-up (mass messaging is kinda of a b**** in terms of how you have to tell it who send the message to) but I can't seem to find the page (I may have deleted it). I'm going to ask for your help because I don't want to manually change 246 names. If you want to help, out, start from the top and I'll start from the bottom so we don't edit conflict each other. Click here and follow what I did for the first few.--Dom497 (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Wait a sec, I would love to help out, but what excatly are you doing, or what should I do? Can you please explain it more thoroughly. Thanks,  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 15:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Never mind, I know what to do now  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 15:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I finished! All you needed to do was find and replace. ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 15:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@TheQ Editor: Thanks so much!--Dom497 (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


Hey Dom, I noticed that you mentioned me on another user's talk page. I've been meaning to touch base with you, but it's been a busy summer. I still haven't decided if I'm going to take on the Recruitment Centre, mostly because I've been distracted with other more shiny things and focusing my energies on other things here. So you can see that my motivation isn't all that high. I keep waiting for the motivation to hit me, but it hasn't yet, despite all the work we've done thus far. I may take that as a sign that it's not a project I'd want to manage, but I'm still undecided. I think that I'd like to hold off on making a decision one way or the other until after the Wikicup's over. If I get into the finals, I'll decide after it's over in late October; if not, it will be much sooner, at the end of this month. Question though: As someone who's involved in GAC, do you think that the Centre would make a difference in the backlog? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Figureskatingfan: Hey, sorry for the late reply (I read your post on my phone but completely forgot about it. Plus, my watchlist randomly filled up so your edit was all the way at the bottom). That's a tough question. If we keep the current "system", no. If you change the "system", maybe. There's no way in telling because I don't know what the final "system" will be. But, in general, I don't think so. IMO, the only way to get the backlog down is through drives which have only proven to be a little successful (and this is where I think you should spend most of your energy, as I said before, no matter what we do to the RC, I still think it is a lost cause). Now, here's where things get interesting. @TheQ Editor: As much as I said I would never organize another backlog drive, I AM up for the option of us three (me, TheQ Editor, and Figureskatingfan) working together to come up with a good drive system that might work. I still won't run the drive (I might be on the side lines watching) but I'm willing to work with you two to try and make this work.--Dom497 (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm alright with that. The only problem with the GA elimination drives is that there are not many people participating in it which brings us to the previous subject, the recruitment centre. The GA reviews are not as easy to do than AFCs. First of all, not many people do not know about it or do not know how to recruit (that's where an advertisement might come in handy). Secondly, they take longer and the time it takes to review them just throws it off. I would recommend a more creative way of eliminating the backlog with lots of different barnstars.  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 15:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
It looks like there already is one, I put one on my userpage just now.  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 16:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@TheQ Editor: We tried advertising...a lot. We were even in the Singpost and that did nothing. Also, about the whole barnstar thing, that's the reason why Backlog Drives were so "successful" at first....because people reviewed JUST for the barnstar and rubber stamped reviews (rushed the review (aka: low quality)). There was a RfC that brought up the concern and even though most of the people involved said "yes, we should change the rules", when we changed the rules, everyone literally said "screw this".--Dom497 (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Guys, the GOCE drives seem to be relatively successful, and they give out prizes and barnstars. Do they have a problem with rubber stamping? It doesn't seem so. The key seems to be consistent and regular drives and rewarding people for reviewing articles. FAC always has a long queue, but they don't seem to have the same issues with long backlogs like GAC has, even with its more stringent requirements. What do you think about following DYK's example? Their QPQ seems to be successful in keeping queues short. What do you guys think about instituting the same thing are GAR? It would mean that nominators would be required to review one article for every one they submit. Another idea is to make it into a competition, like the Wikicup. We could set up points based upon the length and content of articles. People need incentives to review articles, and for GAC, it simply isn't there. If we came up with some, perhaps the backlog would decrease. Just some thoughts. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@Figureskatingfan: I'm all for that....just that the QPQ idea was proposed before and no one wanted it (excluding me)....--Dom497 (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

GAN Backlog[edit]

@TonyTheTiger, TheQ Editor, Figureskatingfan: Ok, I'm only pinging you three because your the only 3 that seem to have worthy ideas. Maybe its because I'm seriously out of the loop but there seems to be several small discussions about how to control this nomination backlog. Because of this (and I can already see this happening), one group of people will say yes to an idea and implement it and then they'll be another group who don't like the idea and the idea is removed (and it will continue going in a circle). On that note, I think we need to get EVERYONE together, talking on ONE page. I know we tried it before (and it failed), but I think our only (best) hope is to open another RfC. Here's how it would work:

  1. First stage: Everyone lists their ideas on how to control the backlog.
  2. Second stage: We vote. Obviously there will be a mix of support and oppose but at this point I think we have no choice but to go with the majority of the votes. Also, I'm not really doing anything for the next two weeks (I was really hoping to get one of my articles to FA but given that I can't find someone to copy-edit it, that plan has since went down the drain for now) so I have a vision to insure that the voting is organized and doesn't look like a giant mess.

Thoughts?--Dom497 (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Not yet, still thinking. The problem is about how fast the nominations are coming in. There should be a bot that removes all {{GA nominee}} templates if the article has a citation needed, or cleanup tags. That should help clear the backlog of all quick-fail articles. Another thing I thought about. The older nominations stick around for that long is pretty much because they're hard to assess and nobody is willing to take on the responsibility ... alone. We could make it so that the oldest nomination can be reviewed by multiple users, somewhat like FAC. So that users could drop down a couple of notes, then leave. What do you all think?  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 20:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@TheQ Editor: Wow, I'm surprised I never thought of the tag removing. I don't know how many current nominations are in that situation but that is actually a very very very good idea! I guess this is where we bring in Legobot. @Legoktm: Is it possible that you can make Legobot remove GA nominations that have citation needed or cleanup tags?
Regarding your second idea, I pretty sure that's been proposed before and everyone immediately beat it down. I'm for giving it a in we do trials (ask nominators if we can do a trail with their nomination and if they say yes, we give it a shot and see how it works). Also, just so you know, these two ideas wouldn't be enough to clear the backlog.--Dom497 (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
There needs to be a higher incentive for harder-to-review articles. That's why I like the idea of a competition, which higher points going for articles that have been languishing the longest, articles that are longer in word count, articles with complicated and obscure content, ect. Holding a competition is a separate issue, though, to better control the backlog. It will help, but it should be an ancillary solution.
I also think that much of the responsibility for articles being reviewed should be on the nominators. I mean, if one of the articles I've submitted to GAN has been languishing for a long time, I take it on myself to ask another editor to review it for me. That may seem unfair to articles that have been there for a while, and it feels like jumping the queue (something most of us are taught as children not to do), but it's appropriate. Many nominators are relatively new editors unfamiliar with how reviews are conducted here, so they don't know that they can do that. I would also support a QPQ system, but I wouldn't support multiple reviews like FAC. GAN is supposed to be a lower level of review, which is why I always thought an article only needed one review to pass to GA and not several like FAs. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@Figureskatingfan: I'll give a "competition" a shot, I just don't know what exactly you plan on doing. A rough outline would be nice! (and I'll try to avoid the edit conflicts!)--Dom497 (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
How about applying a multiplyer to points 1.2 for over 1 month, 1.4 for over 2 months, 1.6 for over 3 months and so on so that older nominations get prioritized.--00:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talkcontribs)

Your GA nomination of Falcon's Fury[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Falcon's Fury you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Falcon's Fury[edit]

The article Falcon's Fury you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Falcon's Fury for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)