If I leave a message on your talk page, I'll keep your talk page on my watchlist until you reply (for a few days, at least), so you can reply here or on your talk page as you prefer. If you use a
{{talkback}} template here, please sign it so the archive bot will archive it.
For other discussions, there's no need to ping me if I've edited the page or section you have posted to; I'll be watching those pages for a week or so.
Treats! has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Enjoy the holidays. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sol Cohen's reprint science fiction magazines, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Brunner and Harry Harrison.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated History of Christianity - again - please take a look and criticize at will. Here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Christianity/archive2 Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks -- and the same to you! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I hope you have a great holiday season too. And thanks for the compliment about the Durrell article; it was a pleasure to write about an author I have been reading for so many decades. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I read his books first as a child - and then, as I grew older, learned (as you do with parents) how much more complex the man behind the stories was than the stories themselves, and how much was left out or simply fictionalized for the sake of a good yarn. Oddly, it didn't decrease my enjoyment of his books at all. It made him, with all his flaws, even more admirable for being just another human being, not a fairy child blessed with an enchanted childhood, but someone who set out to reshape the world around him, and succeeded. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree with all of that. For me, one of the best things about writing for Wikipedia is that you learn more, even about topics you thought you knew well. I had read Durrell's biography some time ago, but having to reread it more carefully for the article gave me a more complete picture of him. I read and reread his books when I first encountered them, in the 1970s and 1980s, and I still have some of those paperbacks, now tattered and falling apart. A big influence on me. I hope to bring James Thurber to FAC some time next year -- there's another figure with a larger-than-life reputation who was a flawed human being; I read Thurber when I was young, too, and look forward to integrating the material in the biographies with my own sense of the human being behind the words. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never read anything by Thurber - I'll see what the library has in stock! —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I recommend starting with My Life and Hard Times; it's a short collection of reminiscences, all originally published in The New Yorker, and if you discover you don't laugh at "The Night the Ghost Got In" or "The Night the Bed Fell on Father" you'll know you're not a Thurber fan. He was at one point more famous for his cartoons than his writing; you can get a flavour of his New Yorker cartoons from this, though the writer of that blog is quite wrong about Thurber's drawing ability -- Thurber could draw realistically when he wanted to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, was wondering if you were interested in giving Licancabur a look-over. I'd like to send it to FAC but SandyGeorgia noted that the prose might need some maintenance first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. Might be a couple of days before I can get to it, but I'm sure I can do it within a week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie Wishing you a Happy New Year in advance and hope that you are enjoying this festive season. Thanks for responding to my queries at FAC. Hopefully I will get an FAC next year (I am still too young for that). Looking forward to any potential collaborations in the future. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, and I hope you're enjoying the holidays! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
World Chess Championship 1972 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike! I hope you are well - happy new year!
I have a question on if something is technically possible with use of your bot.
I was thinking that we currently have a different list for "Wikipedians by" for GA, FA and FL - WP:WBGAN, WP:WBFAN and WP:WBFLN. Do you think it would be possible to tally these together on a new page?
I was thinking of a portable table matching up users for each bit with links to the lists?
Is this something that would be possible. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting idea, but there would be quite a bit of work needed. Here are a couple of issues I can think of.
- I don't have any FL data, so I wouldn't be able to include that.
- I don't have FA data before about August 2006. That's a surprisingly large number of FAs, and (more to the point) FACs. So I don't think I could do anything that would match WBFAN.
- For GAN, there's a bot that records all current GAs, no matter how old. ChristieBot only records data for the GAs that were reviewed on subpages -- I think that started in around 2007. Again, lots of data before that. I do have some history in the database of articles that were GA when ChristieBot took over from Legobot but have since been demoted, but I couldn't provide complete data.
- Having said that, I could do a couple of things that might be worth it:
- I could create a query for an editor that returns both FA and GA data on the same page.
- I could create a stats page that listed all editors with any FAC reviews or GAN reviews (with the constraints above) and have a column for each, and make it sortable.
- -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
