This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mike Christie. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I know you're thrilled to see me back here again. I'm afraid you are the only one who understands what I have been through trying to create this article, but if you are beginning to feel imposed upon, please, please say so, and I will go away. I promise.
When I first wrote this article I tried to give equal attention to both topics and all that produced was vitriol. Nevertheless, I attempted to incorporate all suggestions in a total rewrite using the chronological approach as you suggested. I asked for a peer review, and got two participants who were excellent and even positive. I incorporated all their suggestions and put it up for GA. It failed immediately. That reviewer's suggestion was to pick one topic. That would eliminate the article entirely, of course, which may very well have been his point. So now I have done a third total rewrite that does in a way focus on one topic more than the other, and since Christianization of the Roman Empire is the more controversial topic that seems to upset everyone so, I picked diffusion of innovation as the topic for this attempt to be organized around.
The trouble now is that I have rewritten this so many times I can no longer tell if it hangs together at all, makes any sense, or is another attempt doomed for the delete button. It seems like an important concept to me, but it certainly has upset a lot of folks. It does have a point-of-view, no doubt, but by WP standards that's allowed - and I would add unavoidable - in this particular permutation, right? The parent article, which I also wrote, is broad, but this one can't be. Nevertheless, I included alternative theories. I no doubt have some things in wiki-voice that shouldn't be, and vice versa, and need some prose changes, but as the gods of WP are my witness, all my citations are correct. I hate to ever claim perfection in anything because life has a way of pulling that rug right out from under you, but I will claim it this time.
Will you read it? I have worked so hard on this, for so long, and I need a "pro" to tell me if there is any hope. I suppose I can leave it posted, even if it doesn't get GA approval, but I hate to do that. I don't want to be stubborn and avoid learning what I need to learn from this. I want to be in accord with other editors. If it can't pass GA standards, it seems like it shouldn't be up at all. No hard feelings if you don't want to do anymore. Really. Just tell me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't feel imposed on; don't hesitate to ask me this sort of thing. However, I am doubtful about how much I can help, because I know so little about the topic. I think it would be best if you could get more feedback from the two helpful peer reviewers -- is that possible?
However, I have another suggestion, one which I may have made before. Part of the reason the GA article failed is for NPOV; the reviewer felt it was arguing a viewpoint, rather than presenting information. I also see from the talk page that you suggest to the reviewer that a POV is justified because it's a subpage that attempts to explain one particular point of view. I think the reviewers suggestion of posting at WP:NPOV/N is a good one; a consensus there that you are right would be something you can point out to any future reviewers. I see they make other comments too, and those are likely to recur in future reviewer's; for example I gather from the review page that you have material cited directly to the Bible, which almost any reviewer would treat as unacceptable. But I said I had a suggestion: it is that you might consider putting together an article for publication elsewhere. The reason I suggest this is that I've just had to do the same thing myself -- I've been researching the early history of ice drilling, and have come up with an argument about the progress of that technology that I can't put into the Wikipedia article because it's not sourceable to anywhere. I've submitted it as an academic paper, and if it gets accepted I will be able to cite it in the relevant articles on Wikipedia (though I'll have to declare it as a possible conflict of interest, of course). Anyway, my point is that POV pieces do indeed get published elsewhere, and doing that, in addition to allowing you to write as you see fit, would give you material that could then be cited here. You might find that more productive.
And I know I've suggested before that you work on small articles, on small subtopics, not on big ones -- I think you would avoid a lot of the problems you're running into if you did that. You're having trouble because you're ambitious!
Sorry if this isn't what you wanted to hear, but I hope it's helpful. If you really want me to take a look at the article I can, but I don't think it would help. I think I can be more help to you navigating the system than actually working on the article, because your troubles are not with the content but with the presentation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Bless you dear one. None of those who have reviewed this knew much about either topic. It was quite evident to me at any rate, but I was okay with that because I figure the average reader will know even less. If I can't explain it sufficiently to WP editors, my chances with an average reader seem pretty slim. I have doctoral level work (though I didn't finish) in this field - religion - from a State University, yes, but at least not a Bible college for Heaven's sakes! It is often difficult for me to see what people don't know - if you follow my meaning. I value input from outsiders.
I will post at NPOV as suggested - I had already decided that was a good idea and was just waiting to finish the rewrite and get your input before exposing my throat to the meatgrinder. I have eliminated those Bible references, though it is acceptable in articles on religion, and there were never any that stood alone without a secondary source. They are gone anyway.
I have been asked to submit articles before, and I belong to a couple of professional associations that give me that option, but I haven't submitted anything in a long time. If they rip me to shreds on NPOV, I will reconsider. What exactly do you mean by my trouble is with the presentation? Is that about POV? I cannot for the life of me figure out how to present this perspective without its perspective. Sigh. It is inherently a point of view! I don't really think anyone can help me with the system. It has its own biases and expectations and that's just the way it is. I do small articles all the time! Honestly! Even small sections! I can't always tell what will grow out of proportion ahead of time! And yes, I would still appreciate your read of the article. You are brilliant, and I want to grow up to be like you some day - if I ever grow up... Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I think the NPOV noticeboard is a good idea; with luck you'll get some good feedback there. Yes, by presentation I was really talking about POV -- mostly on the basis of what others say, since I haven't read your articles thoroughly enough to have my own opinion. I'll see if I can get to read the article this month, but it might be a little while -- I'm trying to do a lot of FAC reviewing and there is still a backlog, and after that I was planning to do some GA reviews. So no promises. Let's hope the NPOV noticeboard is helpful. And I'm glad to hear you work on small articles too -- I would hate to think this kind of big, time-consuming problem article was your only experience of Wikipedia editing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The end of August? Okay, wow. Hmmmm. I didn't want to post on the board until you had gone through the article because I trust you. You are fair. And I have developed a mistrust of that particular accusation here on WP. So now I feel compelled to explain.
You are, of course, aware that religion is a controversial topic. And we are both aware that it is tempting - for some editors - to portray their own faiths in the best light. What many are unaware of is that those outside a particular faith are often just as tempted to paint a negative picture. Wikipedia recognizes that one of the top motivations for editing here is ideology.[1] That ideology is sometimes anti-religion in a heavy handed manner. I did not know this before I started editing here a few years ago and allowed a particularly vitriolic editor to run me off for a year and a half, but I have the experience now of having run into this on a regular basis - every week in fact - because everyone is biased, and not all biases are pro-religion.[2][3][4][5] Did you know 90% of people have gender bias against women?[6] I run into that as well, but it shocks most people because most people are uncomfortable with the idea that they have any inherent bias of any kind. They think that not being religious makes them unbiased, automatically, but it often gives them a different kind of bias instead.
It is possible to set aside personal biases, but it first requires facing them. These [7][8][9] discuss how people can neutralize their own biases. I have done a lot of reading on this. I have made great and repeated personal efforts toward learning and practicing them, and I have done so for about ten years now. That's because I take the requirement of neutrality to be an aspect of justice and truth, and I take those quite seriously. These are big and important ideas. I am not casual about this. My undergraduate studies included philosophy, and my graduate program was in the field of ethics which has been my primary interest since I was 10. That's why I studied world religion- can't be much of an ethicist without knowing religion. I had a whole ethical system worked out that I did not get to stay and finish getting criteria for because I had to have surgery and lost my scholarship. (My system is similar to Lawrence Kohlberg's levels of development and Jonathon Haidt's 5 main principles. I have read everything Haidt has written. I love him!) What I know is that, in the pursuit of truth and justice as the highest ethical goals, neutrality is an absolutely necessary early step. I believe in it. I have a bias toward it. But I also know that neutrality and extreme skepticism are not the same things. You have no way of knowing that I grew up with an atheist father who was an extreme skeptic, and that I too was atheist into adulthood. That does not make me automatically unbiased. But it gives me a broader perspective on religion than most. I am not a theologian, I am an ethicist, so I see the commonalities in all ethics - so both my background and my education - and my choices - help toward neutrality.
I do not, absolutely do not, edit as an agent of my religion. I do recognize biases exist within religion, and I make the effort to neutralize those both internally and externally. I am careful about what religious sources I use, if any, making sure to use only the 12 best most established academic ones. Those high quality academic religious publishers reflect about 40% of all the work done in religious studies, did you know that? That means refusing to make use of them, as many non-religious do, biases content automatically - just as choosing evangelical non-academic sources does. How many non-religious can say that they have confronted their own biases, taken the time and made the effort to set them aside, and are willing to make use of any and all quality academic sources without prejudice? I assure you not many that I have encountered, but perhaps this simply reflects that there are not many truly neutral editors - period.
It has been empirically demonstrated that speedy responses are rooted in belief biases about 75% of the time.[10][11] Quick reviews that don't take time to consider are proven to be more biased than those that do take sufficient time to consider. Both reviewers who accused me of bias were fast.[12] That is why, imho, GA and FA quick-fails of any controversial topic should not be allowed. These topics are easy to identify. Just look at the top 100 articles that are constantly being re-edited. I know as fact that there are many editors here on WP who simply assume that anything that is not negative about religion reflects a bias in favor of it and quick-fail accordingly.
All of this together is why I tend to mis-trust accusations of bias toward me unless they are demonstrated with concrete examples. I freely acknowledge my reaction as a kind of bias in itself, therefore, I try to counteract it by asking for input from people like you. If I have suddenly developed a blind spot, I need to know that. If you take the time to read and you conclude this article is non-neutral in a way WP cannot accept,[[13]] then I will believe you, but I need to know it from someone who is going to put forth the same kind of commitment to neutrality that I have. I think that is you. I can only think of one other editor here that I trust as much. I will simply look for a consensus on the POV board. From you I am looking for truth and reality. I know that is quite a lot to put on a relative stranger, and I have ranted here some, forgive me, but I hope you will understand why I am willing to wait on you till the cows come home. I don't have any cows, so that will never end. If it's a month, then so be it. I won't like it much, but I feel strongly that you are worth waiting for. (Maybe you could do it a little at a time?) Whatever, whenever - if you do it, I will be grateful. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I believe in your commitment to neutrality, and I think that you're realistic about it, and clearly knowledgeable as well -- I am familiar with some of the studies on bias, but a couple of things you linked to were new to me. I'm also sensitive to the compliment you're paying me by asking me to give you my opinion of the article. But to give you an opinion on the article that I can really defend, I would have to put more time into reading it, and understanding both what it says and some of the source material, than I can spare. I have reviewed long articles on topics I'm not familiar with before, but not while trying to evaluate something as difficult to assess as neutrality in a minefield topic like this. And I don't want to give you an opinion based on skimming the article; that would be unfair, both to you, and to anyone else who would like to improve the article.
A year or three ago a very good editor spent hundreds of hours improving Bengal famine of 1943, and was unable to get it through FAC. I recall saying to them that without the bronze star, the article was still outstandingly good, and that they should be proud of it regardless. Going through the Wikipedia quality processes is external validation, which is why most of us do it, but that means in turn that we have to submit to what the external validators say. If you think they're wrong, it's entirely up to you not to submit it, and consider that it's better that way. Other editors may come along to collaborate on the talk page, but if you think the GA process makes the article worse, why go through it?
I think you should go the NPOV noticeboard without waiting for me -- it's quite likely I won't find time to read the article thoroughly enough to be willing to post my thoughts; I won't say I never will, but at the moment I don't see it happening. You're a capable writer and deeply knowledgeable about your topic: I think you can get to the right outcome without my input -- or at least without my specific input on that article's content. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello again. Apologies for the random message. I just have a quick question related to my current FAC. The nomination is for "I Need You", a song by Paris Hilton. In the lede, I identify Hilton as an American socialite and one of the FAC reviewers believes I should add this the article and have a citation for it.
I am uncertain on how I would do that without making the prose awkward. I had drafted a few ideas where I had a sentence or two about Hilton's transition into music in 2006 with her album, but it just felt like a weird thing to add since this was not her first musical release.
I thought about just changing the lede to say "American singer" because Hilton has released a decent amount of music (i.e. an album and a handful of singles), but I worry that would be misleading since she is not primarily known as a singer so I would not want to give readers a misleading impression. What would your advice be for this kind of situation? Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I had a look at a few other song articles that have reached FA, and I do see introductory sentences about the stage the performers had reached in their careers in some of them. In All About That Bass, there's a background section that starts with a sentence about where Trainor was in her career, for example. 4 Minutes, Watching the River Flow, and Don't Say You Love Me (M2M song) all have a similar sentence, though there's not always a separate background section. Is a short background section an option where you can describe her career, starting as a socialite and moving into music later? Maybe make that first section "Background, recording, and release", and then you don't need a new subsection, just start the section with a one- or two-sentence paragraph giving her career summary to that point? Looking at some of the song articles that don't do any kind of background sentence to start the article, I think they're the worse for it -- it's good to set the stage a little when describing a moment in someone's career. Do you think something like that could work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I appreciate the time you have put into giving me a substantial answer to a very random question. I have added some background to the article and I changed the section title to "Background and release" as I am not sure if "Background, recording, and release" would be too long, especially when compared to the other section headings.
Apologies for asking another favor, but if possible, could you look through the paragraph I have added and do a brief copy-edit to make sure it would be appropriate for a featured article? Apologies again and thank you for your help! Aoba47 (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
No problem. I think it's fine as it stands, and would probably be OK with the reviewer, but since you asked me to comment, here are a couple of possible edits. I might change "breakthrough" to something like "first became a public figure" or "widely known" or something along those lines; the source says she "gained fame", which could be interpreted as a breakthrough into public awareness, so it's not wrong as it stands, but breakthrough also implies sudden success in a particular career, and a reader might interpret that as her music career, given the topic of the article. The other edit I might make is to avoid the similar rhythm of "Based on the show's success" and "Following the album's release"; maybe make the first one "The show's success led Hilton to expand her career..."? Neither change is necessary, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Mike! I see you've been clearing the backlog at Image and source check requests. I wanted to ask if you could do one source review for me. I'm actually trying to start doing SRs myself so I might try to give one back one of these days!--NØ09:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I've just taken on a project to clip newspaper items for an article, and that's likely to take me a few days. Once that's done I'll probably be looking to do more reviews, and if Title is still waiting I'd be happy to pick it up then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
That one's done but there's another Title on the block. You probably saw it at the requests page already but still felt like telling. Regards--NØ19:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I did see it, but I'm probably not doing any source reviews for a short while -- I have a real-life project coming up that may take a chunk of my spare time. I have one FAC I'd like to review but other than that I am currently planning to do a few GA reviews with what time I have, at least until my next FAC nomination goes up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, not for a week or two! But to be honest if I am doing source reviews I will probably just pick the oldest request and not jump the queue, though I do occasionally skip one. So I would end up doing whatever you request if nobody else gets there first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Many thanks for your support on the above, but it was not enough. As this was my first FAC, it will take me a little while to digest the criticism and make some corrections before resubmitting. When I do resubmit, would you please review it again?Georgejdorner (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for all the reviews and for pointing me to Glossary of broadcasting terms. We're now working to expand that list and give it more heft. Many obvious US entries were missing, and it had mostly been maintained by UK editors, I gather. I may be a dorknerd, but mentioning ATV's idents in the definition for "zoom" definitely is a step or two too far.
I also appreciate your note about prose quality. Of the current batch of GAs, I can only think that WSNS-TV and maybe WSCV would merit FA-bound attention. My next planned FAC is KCPQ in Seattle. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
OK, I should be able to look at those over the next day or so. Glad to see the activity at the glossary; I'm going to need that if I review more of your articles! And don't try to out-nerd a nerd...could get much too competitive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations, Mike Christie! The article you nominated, Offham Hill, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence
Nice work on going to the bottom of all the sources! Truly appreciate it. Also, for the gem of an advise on your user page "Protest long enough that you are right and you will be wrong. - Yiddish proverb"
While looking for GAs to review, I came across Won (As Friends Rust album), which looked interesting. Though, I had a look at its history after I started reviewing and saw that it was quick failed by you. Because of concerns of criteria 2b, 3b, and 4, I've quick failed it again, ending up with a list of non-RS websites somewhat longer than yours, if you disagree on my assessment, please start a discussion on the talk page. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up -- I was confident I did the right thing but it's always nice to have a second opinion that agrees. I've watched the article and GA2 and will post if necessary if a conversation starts. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
GAN second opinions that really need new reviewers
Mike Christie, I noticed that you stepped in to take over a GAN review by an unqualified new reviewer—and have been doing splendid work reviewing dozens of articles lately at GAN—and I was wondering whether you might be interested in taking over a few of the second opinion requests that are actually waiting for a new reviewer rather than for a second opinion. These include:
Talk:Letchworth/GA1: originally opened back on March 2, the original reviewer, SounderBruce, was unable to continue as of June 14; ActuallyNeverHappened02 posted on June 24 that they'd be taking over with a new review up in a few days, and hasn't been heard from since. After two months, this has to be considered abandoned.
Talk:Ed Bradley/GA1: the original reviewer, M4V3R1CK32, did so much work on the article that they had to recuse themselves, but are prepared (as of June 24) to address any issues that come up from a new reviewer.
Talk:Mammootty/GA1: the original reviewer, Tayi Arajakate, ended up not finishing a number of reviews that they took on; this was the only one of those unfinished where some progress was made prior to stopping. The nominator, Paavamjinn, has posted that they're interested in continuing.
Talk:Christopher Lee/GA1: the nominator, Chiswick Chap, has requested a second opinion/new reviewer; the original reviewer, Realmaxxver, has not been good at keeping up with their reviews, making promises and not following through. They did just do one badly overdue review, but this one hasn't had any new review material in over two months.
I'll have a look and might pick up one or more. I'm trying to focus on the never-reviewed backlog at the moment, but I know these have to be looked at too. Perhaps you could post this list at the GAN talk page too, to see if others might be available to pick them up? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
We could, but the more stuff you put there the less attention that gets paid to whatever's most important. It's all there on the Reports page, for those who know to look. (Maybe a link to the Reports page would be helpful? It could go under the list of the five oldest unreviewed noms.) If you think you might pick up one or more of the four I listed here, I'll hold off until after the end of the month before posting anything to the GAN talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Go ahead and post to the talk page; I will have a bit less time over the next week -- working a couple of days, and then out of town for a day -- so may be a bit less active. And yes, the report is the place to look for those who are willing to help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I did some upgrades to the magazine. Let me know if you have any other suggestions, as I am interested in ultimately making it a Good Article. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Doug, thanks for the note. I'll take another look. I also have some other sources that I can dig into later (I'm on a short trip so can't look today) and I think there's a good chance they'll have something about the later history of the magazine. I'll let you know what I find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Doug, just a quick note to let you know I've found a couple of pages about the history of the magazine in Nourie & Nourie's American Mass-Market Magazines. That should be really useful for the article. I should be able to work on that some time this week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Rescuing old GANs
Hi Mike,
I wanted to ask if you're willing to provide a second opinion on two long-stalled GANs: Talk:PS Keystone State/GA1 and Talk:SS Manasoo/GA1. They were actually nominated in November 2021 and January 2022 respectively, but have for various reasons been stalled out for a very long time. I have no involvement with the articles or reviews myself, I've just noticed they're the oldest open ones in the transportation category, and they need a second opinion (a third opinion, technically). I know you're a very good and active GAN reviewer, so I though I'd ask if you're interested in resolving these. Thanks for all you do here! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the note (and I appreciate the compliment!). I'm not averse, but at the moment I'm focused on trying to help with the backlog of ordinary reviews. At some point I'll run out of energy to do high-volume GA reviewing, and when that happens, I think I will have a look at some of the second opinion requests. But for now I'd like to continue with the regular reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
The article Amazing Stories Annual you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Amazing Stories Annual for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
The article Mind Magic (magazine) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mind Magic (magazine) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Question about error message
Hello again and apologies for bothering you again. I have recently rewritten The Random Years and I have received the following error message in the citations: Cite error: A list-defined reference with group name "" is not used in the content (see the help page). I did not get this error when I was working on the article in my sandbox, and I honestly do not understand what is causing this to show up. I would greatly appreciate any insight. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Hadn't seen that before but I was able to figure it out. I deleted an sfn inside ref tags, which I gather you shouldn't do (I don't use sfn). I reverted myself since I deleted a citation, but that should let you fix it properly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I forgot to revert the sfn to a harvnb and I have done so which removed the error message. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I am reviewing older nominations, rather than new ones, at the moment, but if it's still there in a while I may take another look. Best of luck with the nomination. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
GA review method
I saw your comment on Talk:New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999 about not spotchecking for experienced editors, and I find significant problems with this; one of the articles I reviewed on DC's talk page has a lot of close paraphrasing and copyvio. I think that this whole mess is a learning experience for a lot of people, so this is just a request to please spotcheck even on experienced editors. It takes a lot of effort to clean up copyvio, as I think more people have discovered over the past 48 hours, but it takes even more to go and deal with copyvios in GAs (can't outright remove without someone getting annoyed). I do appreciate your reviewing, and I think that you do good work, but unfortunately we need to even give a cursory glance at source-to-article comparisons for experienced people. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I have to agree; and thanks for the note. I will be doing at least a couple of spotchecks on every GA I review from now on, and more if those are unsatisfactory. I think, as Iazyges pointed out at ANI, that I probably suffer from having reviewed at FAC, where not spotchecking experienced editors is institutionalized. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)
Conan O'Brien
Hello. I noticed in your review that you asked what made araratnews.am a reliable source, and it was removed. It's a fairly large news company, but it can be tabloid-ish so it was probably best to remove it. The Hollywood Reporter source didn't mention the series name though. Do you consider either of these two sources to be up to GA standards? Dallavid (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
The first is funded by the US and although the about page says the US has no editorial control, I probably wouldn't want to use it for inflammatory or controversial political statements. For factual reporting I would treat it like any radio news organization. The second has an about page that makes it clear they are a political group, so I would attribute to them as opinion most political statements, rather than treating them as automatically factual. Uncontroversial political facts would probably be OK. So for entertainment information the first seems fine and the second OK, though not ideal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Offham Hill article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 18, 2022. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 18, 2022, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article War Birds you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The article War Birds you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:War Birds for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Hi Mike, hope you're well. If you have a moment I'd appreciate your advice on Vector as a source; the impression I've gotten so far is that its reviews may not be as weighty as a better-known magazine's, but it may still be usable.
Also, do you happen to have access to Locus magazine issues from the 90s? I'm looking for 409, 421, 432, 434, and 435. I don't need all of them by any means, but any would be nice. Vanamonde (Talk)02:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
On the plus side, Vector always had editorial control, and the editor, back when I was involved anyway, would choose reviewers rather than just publishing whatever was sent in. Factual material such as news reports I think would be fine. Reviews -- it might get questioned at FAC but at would be fine at GA. If the reviewer has other writing credentials that would be best. E.g. I wrote a couple of reviews for Vector, but I also wrote for Foundation, which would help if you wanted to use a review I wrote. If the reviewer is a published author that would also help. For articles that are not reviewers but broader critical commentary I would not want to use it unless the author had established a separate reputation, so again to use me as an example I wrote a piece in Vector on Suzette Haden Elgin's Native Tongue that I think should not be treated as a high-quality reliable source -- I have a handful of sf-related publications to my name, including a story, but that doesn't establish me as a critic with a reputation. Re Locus, no, I got rid of all my paper issues a while back, but I do have an online subscription so I can search their archive if you like. What are you working on, by the way? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for all this! I'm working on The Farseer trilogy, which I can take zero credit for thus far: Olivaw-Daneel has written the current version and taken it to GA. I felt it could easily be FA standard with a little polish and more contemporary reviews. There's not too many listed at ISFDB, but the majority are in locus, in the issues mentioned; if you wouldn't mind searching, that'd be appreciated! I've gotten hold of ones in Asimov's SF, F&SF, and Interzone, in addition to the Vector review. That last is by Alan Fraser, who so far as I can see wasn't a writer in his own right, but did write a number of reviews. If you think it'd be doubtful for FAC, though, I may skip it; there's not a dearth of material. Vanamonde (Talk)15:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I think I'd avoid using Fraser; looks like he did a lot of reviewing but was not a writer. For Locus, I searched the website and found only three links with even minor useful mentions: 2005 interview, influence of the cover, quote from PW review. If you can't access any of those three let me know and I can email you PDFs. I checked the backfile available online and it only goes back to 2017 as complete PDF issues. I haven't purchased those but I bought a lifetime subscription in 1985 so can probably sweet-talk them into letting me have them if you need them. I recall reading a couple of Hobbs' books not long after they came out; I enjoyed them, I think, but I was already starting to OD on high fantasy by then so never finished the trilogy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
The tidbit from the interview with Hobb may be usable, the others don't add much, I think. The reviews are all in issues from 1995-1997 (numbers above); so I imagine they simply haven't been digitized yet. I got my hopes up because a couple are available on the internet archive, and many other magazines are...I'll ask at RX to see if anyone else has them, though I suspect it's unlikely. One of the issues was available on ebay, I'm considering getting it. Vanamonde (Talk)16:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Makes sense, I found a kickstarter campaign seeking funds to digitize all issues...perhaps someone will have hard copies they can scan. Thanks! If it's alright with you, I may ask you to take a look before we take this to FAC. Vanamonde (Talk)16:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if you could give some advice at my current PR for a pop-music article. I have worked with mostly exclusively-music-related editors before, so having advice from an editor like you would be substantially beneficial. Regards, Ippantekina (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Mike, I hope this finds you doing well;) On the Hall of Fame for Great Americans page Hall of Fame for Great Americans the images of about 19 statues were removed by another user and I restored them today, but you removed them again. My understanding from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Public_art_and_copyrights_in_the_US is that statues displayed publicly (published) before 1978 are in the public domain and therefore images of them would be allowed. It says:
"Prior to 1978, copyrighted works, including statues, first published or registered in the USA that failed to comply with all of the required copyright formalities lost their copyright and entered the public domain. This means that "publishing" a copyrighted statue without satisfying the requirement that notice of the copyright be displayed (or “visibly perceived”) ended the copyright of the statue and placed it in the public domain. (17 USC § 401(a); see Nimmer on Copyrights § 4.02(B)2 and 17 USC § 303.)"
I assume you have more experience about this than I do since I am not very active on Wikipedia. Because I don't understand this issue could you explain it to me a bit more? Thank you!
Hello, Mike Christie. You have new messages at Jackygage's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi! I’m not an image expert but I the way I understand it is that we would need to be sure these statues were out of copyright. I don’t know for sure that these statues were or are without any visible copyright notice. If that’s so and your interpretation is correct then yes they would be fine. If they’re in copyright then freedom of panorama is relevant so the images are in copyright too. I’m in a business meeting most of the day and won’t be able to post much but there’s a copyright notice board you might post at to get a more expert opinion; the people there are likely to know much more than I do about this issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful reply Mike, I really appreciate it! I am very interested in copyright so I will take your suggestion and post on the link you provided me with (copyright notice board). If they agree images should be allowed of the Hall of Fame for Great Americans (since the statues have been on display since before 1978) then I hope you will also agree. I'll plan to follow up with you about this so we will both know for sure. It's an interesting issue. The wikipedia page for Hall of Fame for Great Americans states "The majority of the busts were sculpted between 1922 and 1930" so I have to say I will be surprised, then, if images of these statues would not be allowed to be shown. Jackygage (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
@Jackygage and @Mike Christie, I've started a new section about this issue at Talk:Hall of Fame for Great Americans. Basically, the 1978 date refers to the Copyright Act of 1976, which drastically redefined the length of copyright terms for creative works, such as sculptures. 1978 is not the cutoff for when these sculptures came into the public domain. That cutoff would be 1926. For creative works published before 1978, copyright terms are restricted to 95 years. Some creative works published after 1926 may have already entered the public domain if they did not comply with certain formalities, but it's safe to assume that most creative works published after 1926 are copyrighted. By my calculation, only 37 sculptures were completed in or before 1926, which means the majority of the sculptures are still protected by copyright, unless the sculptors failed to comply with the aforementioned formalities. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations, Mike Christie! The article you nominated, John Raymond science fiction magazines, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Hog Farm (talk) via FACBot (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you today for Offham Hill, introduced: "This is the sixth article I've nominated about an archaeological site; like most of the previous ones, this is about a causewayed enclosure in Sussex. Sadly the site has been almost completely destroyed, first by quarrying and then by ploughing, so the single excavation, in 1976, represents all we are ever likely to know about it." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on the GA nominations sort order improvement project. You've put a lot of time in, and I wanted to show my appreciation! —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Mike, I used to use the facstats tool to look up the nomination-to-ratio stats of current FAC nominators (by clicking on "Current FACs"). Today, when I went to that page, it only has three nominators listed, all from older FACs. This has been happening for a couple of weeks now. Is there a bug on that page, a problem on my end, a change made to the system, or something else? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
I am in need of someone to do a source review on Eunice Foote and wondered if you would be willing to do that? It is a very similar situation to the Mary Amelia Swift article you recently reviewed for me, as I used primary sources (limited to verifying facts) to ensure the accuracy of current reference materials. Since her history was obscured for 100+ years, I felt it necessary to verify that current sources were not repeating errors in the details of her life. If you are busy with other things or prefer not to, I totally understand. SusunW (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Are you aware of a prior FAC with this sort of use of primary sources? I recall the previous discussion at the GA review, but given the higher bar at FAC ("high-quality reliable sources" vs. "reliable source") I think it has to be revisited unless we have earlier case law, so to speak, addressing this. It might be worth starting a discussion at WT:FAC, to get more input -- aside from anything else, a broader discussion serves as a better reference point for any future FACs you submit with similar sourcing, to avoid having to relitigate your case every time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I am not aware of any such discussion, as admittedly this is only my 3rd FA nomination. One of the reasons I thought to ask you to do the review is because of your reviewing expertise and I am a novice at the process. Are you saying that I should start a discussion before it is brought up in the Foote review? That seems a bit like cart before the horse, but again, I am the inexperienced one in this review process, so will follow your advice if that is your meaning. SusunW (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I see what you mean about cart before the horse, but maybe it would be best. There are lots of people who've done FAC source reviews, but not many who would consider themselves really expert at it; I don't think of myself as an expert on the issues, though I'm getting better at some of the technical complexities. More than half of all source reviews ever done at FAC were done by just three reviewers: Brianboulton, Nikkimaria, and Ealdgyth. Brian, sadly, passed away about three years ago. Ealdgyth is swamped with real-life work at the moment.
Nikki, would you be able to either comment on the question of whether a FAC discussion is a good idea, or actually do the source review? I haven't had time to look at Eunice Newton Foote yet, but per SusunW's comments, Talk:Mary Amelia Swift will give you an idea of the issues that might need to be looked at. I said at that review that Susun's use of the sources went beyond what I would do, but was within the letter of the law. Since it differs from normal practice I think some more scrutiny is a good idea, and you're one of the top source reviewers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much. I appreciate your help and am honestly trying to learn the processes. It is difficult. In the case of Foote, and typical for other women/under-represented people, plenty of scholarly articles discuss the work, but the biographical details are not to be found there other than a stray fact here and there – born, went to school, spouse name, etc. – not a biography, rather a list. To flesh-out the person, one must rely on sources that historically covered women, i.e. newspapers, women's journals, and government documents. To my eye, if our goal is to present the best article that we can, we can't exclude the best sources available for verifying their activities. But, maybe I'm wrong and need to look at it in a different way. SusunW (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Susun, I'd be happy to review whatever you plan to post. I would suggest pulling out a couple of examples of places where you have used sources in a way you suspect will require discussion -- for example any primary sources used to fill in details not available in secondary sources, or any cases where secondary sources conflict and primary sources are used to suggest a resolution, or where primary sources are used to demonstrate the reliability of a secondary source, or where a primary source mentions a Eunice Foote without making it definite that it is our Eunice Foote being mentioned. I wouldn't make it too long; a couple of clear examples would be better than a full list. Feel free to mention that Nikki and I both suggested posting the question if you like. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Mike and Nikkimaria, I reached out to a FA coordinator for help in crafting a conversation, but I was advised that the guideline already provided for use of primary sources when appropriate and discussion on the policy was unneeded. Sorry to have created unnecessary conversation. I'm happy to just wait for the source review on Foote. SusunW (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
No apology needed; it's your call, and if you checked with a coord you did your due diligence. I'll see if I can find time for the source review over the next few days; it won't be today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Perfect. As said before, it's very inciteful stuff, and as gives structure and flow, makes those sections less tiring and repetitive to read. Ceoil (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus
Hello, Mike Christie. You have new messages at Talk:TRAPPIST-1. Message added 09:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Mike Christie. You have new messages at Talk:TRAPPIST-1. Message added 09:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi! I just created an article on Child poverty in the United States, and I was wondering if you could give me any advice on making it better? I am a part of Dr. Diana Strassman's class at Rice University, and she recommended reaching out to you for advice. Please let me know soon if you can help! --Mmemorablemoments (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
FAC reviewing statistics
Hi Mike. I have no idea how you find the time, but I would like to express my admiration for the statistics and all your other contributions. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Honolulu (pool) has been nominated for a community 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. 141Pr08:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Technical Barnstar
Your bot work is deeply appreciated, as well as your communication and attention to flagged bugs from prior versions of the GAN bot. Thank you for all you do! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations, Mike Christie! The article you nominated, Science Fiction Monthly, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Hog Farm (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Source review
Hi Mike, I wasn't going to remove Seddon from the list until I'd done more than put my placeholder in (IOW same process I applied for Nick's Project Waler) and I probably won't get to Seddon for a day or so, but it probably makes sense to remove from the list at the earliest point -- sorry for the confusion! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello again. I hope you are doing well and you are having an enjoyable week so far. I have a quick FAC-related question. I was thinking of bringing Manos Arriba through the FAC process. I recently reworked that article and I will of course bring it through the peer review process first to get as much feedback as possible before a FAC. The article is about an extended play and the singer Rosanna Tavarez (who uses the stage name Chana) is currently a redirect.
Would it be encouraged to create an article on Tavarez before doing a FAC or would that be unnecessary? I will likely get around to making a short start-class article later this year or possible next year, but I want to take some space from the EP article so I can come back to it with a fresh perspective. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't have thought it would be necessary. I suppose someone might think if there's no article on the singer they might question the notability of the song, but so long as you can support the notability of the song I would think it would be fine. I assume it's not the case that this is the only well-known release of Tavarez's? If so I could imagine someone suggesting they should be the same article, but if she has multiple notable releases that shouldn't be an issue either. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the very quick response. I could not remember a similar instance in the FAC space so I wanted to get some insight about it. Manos Arriba is Tavarez's only release as a solo artist, but she was part of an album while a member of the girl groupEden's Crush. Lately, she has also received some coverage for her work as a dancer. I can fully support the notability of the EP, but I wanted to make sure that the lack of an artist article would not immediately derail a FAC. Either way, it is not something I plan to pursue in the immediate future, but I wanted to be as prepared as possible for when I do. Thank you again. I greatly appreciate it! Aoba47 (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 53
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 53, September – October 2022
Mike, your offer is much appreciated. However, there was a review in progress when it was archived again, so I doubt your review would have stopped it being pulled. It has become apparent to me that I am wasting my time trying to get an A Class or FA nomination reviewed. I can write a Good Article to the same standards and not bother with this frustrating waste of time. Of course, I will also quit reviewing A or FA nominations. Non quid pro quo.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
It's ironic that the first friendly gesture in this niche community comes as I leave it. However, it's not realistic for me to find three reviewers within the two weeks or so the coordinator allots my nom. I have always been courteous to other editors, but I'm not a social animal and don't have a friends list to message, even if I wanted. I do my share of reviews, including in this forum. None of the reviewed parties has returned the favor.
Then too, I have started to regard my time differently now that I have turned 80. The time I spend fruitlessly posting nominations can be used for improving some other article.
Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is 104.202.249.118. I’m staying at a relative’s host and using their home wifi. Also, I have the global-ip-block-exempt right and I thought that would allow me to edit in this situation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Mike, your request looks to be in order but I have no experience handling this type of block. I've posted on ANI asking someone who does to take care of it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations, Mike Christie! The article you nominated, Dime Mystery Magazine, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Geliyoo has been nominated for a community 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. Thanks, SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Eventually, yes. I have a sandbox here where I track the status of various sf and sf-related magazines. Currently I have The Black Cat at FAC. I haven't decided what I'll nominate next. Most of the major magazines are FAs now, though, so it'll either be something recent like Interzone or a more minor magazine from the pulp years. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
A Barnstar for you
The Feather Barnstar
For your consistent ability to provide excellent edits, in-depth reviews, and quality insight. You've always been someone too look up to whenever there is an issue and your technical understanding is something to be admired. Perhaps one day Christiebot can automate GA reviews entirely (please, we need it)!!! Etrius ( Us)21:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
It's been quite a while since SpaceX Starship failed FAC in which you've commented on. I've thought a lot about these comments, including yours, and tried my best to make the prose better since then; I've even printed out the article and painstakingly highlight errors. However, my copyediting skills are not really good, and there are certainly still errors inside the article after lots of edits. If you have time, I hope that you will take a look at the article and spot those pesky errors. Thanks, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Have you considered requesting a GOCE copyedit done? They're not able to help with problems that require an understanding of the sources, but for some of the issues that I saw last time I think they could help. You might also consider finding either a mentor (see the FAC talk page for a link) or a collaborator, perhaps from a space-related WikiProject. It's not easy to get through FAC even for small articles and this one is not small, which means this is not a great choice for your first FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
I get that it's frustrating. How about getting a bit more experience at FAC by picking a different article -- one that you can find a collaborator for? If you post at WikiProjects that interest you, you might find other editors interested in getting FAC experience. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Wishing you and yours the best over the holiday season, and here's hoping 2023 won't bring as much global trauma as 2020, the worse 2021[14] & fecking 2022! Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I know you said this turned out to be easy but if it turns out to fix thisbug that broke Legobot's ability to detect me for the last seven years, then this just might get me back into GA reviewing again. I had no idea you were working on this bot so just wanted to thank you for what undoubtedly was a big investment of time. czar08:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
I think the new bot will see your signature, though in fact that was a separate bug (it was for people who have a signature that doesn't match their user page but still works, such as lower-case "u" in "user"). Anyway, I would be delighted if that inveigled you into GA reviewing again! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Is there a version of [15] but for reviews (WP:WBGAR)? That's the one that the bot would fail to update for me so it was discouraging to contribute only for it not to "count". czar19:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that's the right link. It currently shows you've done 42 reviews; any idea if that's accurate? The new bot tracks exactly which reviews are done by which editor, but of course there's only a month or so of that data so far. However, I'm planning to write some code that will go back through GA history and build that stats table afresh. I imagine I'll run into thousands of odd cases but I might be able to get over 95% accuracy. No idea when I'll do that though. But at least from now on it should be updated correctly if you do a review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
I meant that [16] enumerates for WP:WBGAN but is there a tool that enumerates for WP:WBGAR? I haven't tracked my reviews but I would figure 42 is in the ballpark, give or take a handful. If I recall correctly, I had to update that page manually at some point and maybe Legobot would overwrite it? Something like that. Also depends on how co-reviewing is counted vs. being the primary reviewer. The counter not working (and no reply from the maintainer) was part of what drove me from GAN reviewing, which is onerous enough the way we have it set up. czar21:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
I see what you mean. No, there's no tool like that at the moment for the Legobot era (or before). What I'm recording in the new bot's database is the creator of the review subpage as the reviewer. So far that hasn't failed to be the case; the only issue I've run into is renames and redirects, and (I think) the bot deals with those correctly. So I could write a tool (and plan to) that would enumerate the reviews that count towards the stats total. It would only count post-Legobot reviews if I were to write it today, but if as I mention above I can build something to slow suck GA history out of the past revisions of the reviews it should be able to start including more and more Legobot-era in the enumerated list. That's a long-term project, though. But I can run that query manually now if anyone asks me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:26, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
It's definitely an edge case but if it's helpful, Talk:Noam Chomsky/GA1 is a good example of a GAN ultimately performed by a reviewer and "nominator" who were neither the original reviewer nor the original nominator. If credit is to be formally codified on WP:GAN listings now (fwiw I'm not opposed), it might be worth setting up a dedicated field. czar21:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen a couple of examples -- a lot of second opinion reviews end up that way. I think I can probably keep a "second reviewer" list that I maintain manually. I could probably find many examples like this just by searching for GA subpages that have been edited by anyone except the nominator and subpage creator. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good. In this case, the responder (me) was also different than the person who nominated the article (who never touched it) so the bot missed all of that as well (no notifications from Legobot, not "counted" by SDZeroBot, etc.) Again, not the sort of thing I was tracking closely, but mindful that it matters now that it's being used as a public rating. czar22:00, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
I hope we don't police those numbers to the point that one or two more or less makes a big difference to whether someone's article gets reviewed. But I'm planning at some point in the future to suggest a change to the sort order at GANs -- right now it's oldest first but I think it would be better to place higher on the list nominations by editors who have reviewed a lot, and this point needs to be raised if/when that discussion happens. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
john raymond science fiction magazines
hello, Mike Christie! i thought i should let you know that, in this blurb for this article, i replaced "John Raymond published four science fiction magazines" with "John Raymond published three science fiction magazines and a fantasy magazine" because the former statement contradicts the assertion made later in the blurb that fantasy magazine "published fantasy rather than science fiction", and it seemed strange to have a statement in bold on the main page that was so clearly contradicted merely two sentences later. as the change i made is rather prominent, i thought it would be appropriate to leave you a note about it on your talk page.
i recognize that the line between science fiction magazines and fantasy magazines is sometimes blurry, but wikipedia's own article on science fiction magazines states that they are "publication[s] that offer[] primarily science fiction", which does not appear to be the case for fantasy magazine. i don't have a similar issue with the article's title if that was how the magazines were commonly referenced in reliable sources. please feel free to revert me if you disagree. thanks! dying (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you today for the article, John Raymond science fiction magazines, "about four science fiction magazines published in the early 1950s. The publisher, John Raymond, had no interest in sf, but was lucky enough to hire Lester del Rey, who acquired good material and made the magazines profitable. Raymond was difficult to work with and uninterested in improving the magazines, and del Rey soon left. The magazines lasted only a few months longer, which is a pity as they are better regarded than many of the other 1950s magazines that lasted for many more issues."! - Enjoy the season! --
Congratulations, Mike Christie! The article you nominated, The Black Cat (US magazine), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
ChristieBot error
Hi - just wanted to make you aware of something strange that ChristieBot is doing on my user talk page. For some reason, it has given me four notifications that a page I nominated for GA is being reviewed (once when it actually got claimed by a reviewer, once after that which I deleted from my talk page, and twice more that are currently up). Do you know why this might be happening? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure how helpful this will be to you but the times of the four messages left are (all EST): 4:40 p.m. (correct), 5:22 p.m., 5:02 p.m., and 6:40 p.m. (errors). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
The only thing I see that's odd is that the transclusion was done manually, using the "/" syntax that means subpage. I've deleted that and am rerunning the bot manually to see if that fixes it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I ran the bot three times. The first time it cleaned up the old incorrect records it had; the second time it appears to have notified you correctly and transcluded the review to the talk page correctly; and the third time it did nothing, which is correct. I think it's OK now. I'll need to put in some code to handle that kind of manual transclusion. No idea why that is causing an error but it seems to be what the problem was. Thanks for the note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, sorry about that. I noticed earlier today but can't do anything about it till I get home from work tonight. I'll have to figure out a way for it to handle this kind of thing -- it's turning out to be much more common than I thought it would. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Asimov's Science Fiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Analog.
Thank you today for Combe the article "about a Neolithic causewayed enclosure in Sussex, not far from The Trundle and Whitehawk Camp. The site has been excavated twice, and is a scheduled monument." Happy new year, from vacation! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I have .. no idea. I did sign up for the WikiCup again, so I'll likely be around GAN for a bit... we'll see how things go. Fall will ALWAYS be busy though, so my major wiki editing will likely be spring and early summer... heh. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
It's borderline -- it looks like they do pay, but only a "nominal" amount, and there is editorial control, but they call themselves a blog. Trevor Hogg is credited for that interview (a line down from the "Admin" credit); Hogg isn't listed as one of their staff members, which would have probably brought it across the line. Can you find anything else out about Hogg? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you today for Dime Mystery Magazine, "about the magazine that started the weird menace genre in 1933 -- a subgenre of horror which appears to be about supernatural events but isn't. In these stories, the horrible things that happen to the protagonist always turn out to be the evil machinations of a crazed scientist, or of a greedy relative who is after an inheritance, or something along those lines. Pulp publisher Harry Steeger was looking for a way to improve sales of one of his magazines, and created the new subgenre after he visited the Grand Guignol in Paris. Other magazines soon appeared to cash in on the new market. Weird menace stories only lasted a few years; by the early 1940s Dime Mystery was publishing unexceptional detective fiction. It lasted until 1950, close to the end of the pulp era."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the link -- that's very helpful. I ran the list for you; it's at User:Mike Christie/GA review lists/Ealdgyth. It shows 271 reviews which agrees pretty well with the GA bot stats page. Per my last comment at WT:GAN I am hoping everyone will agree to dropping review counts from before subpages were a thing, which means I would be discounting your first 103 passes and your first 10 fails. You show 334 total, so that should leave 221, but I have 271. Hmm. I'll see if I can figure out the discrepancy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
OK, it looks like some of the early ones you did have a subpage, so that explains part of the discrepancy. Here are the other ones I show that you don't. A couple of these are new, so you probably just haven't listed them yet, but some are older.
... when you're busy, but I have been asking for help all day, and no one has engaged. I'm swamped on the DC implementation detail. I am loathe to move this to Good article space until at least one other set of eyes have looked it over. Might you have a chance to look at user:SandyGeorgia/sandbox9 ? By the way, when you run the reviewers of DC, there are 223 active GAs, and I can find only 7 GAR templates on his talk, so there might have been around 230 ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I had a quick look earlier and it seemed fine but will look in a few and let you know (on your talk). The reviewer-to-nominator connection is surprisingly tricky -- article history doesn't give either, nor does the GA template; WBGAN lists only the nominator, and the reviewer database doesn't record article names. I think I can piece it together but I can't tell you when. Most likely some time over the next week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello again. Apologies for this very random message. I am taking a break from Wikipedia for an extended amount of time, but I've noticed the Vector 2022 notification in my watchlist, and I was curious of your opinion about it? It seems like there is a push to adopt this, and while I respect the work put into it, I just do not care for it. My dislikes for it are mostly on a superficial, visual note. That being said, since you have worked more on the tech side of Wikipedia (more so than I) so I was wondering if there was some benefits I am not seeing or recognizing. Every time I try out the vector, I end up reverting it after only a few moments. Apologies again for this question. I hope you are having a wonderful 2023 so far! Aoba47 (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think I have any useful insights, except that most people (myself included) dislike change in interfaces of any kind. This always comes to mind. I did try it not long ago and reverted to the current Vector fairly quickly. I just switched again, prompted by your post. We'll see how long I last. I do see some possible benefits in getting rid of the side bar in some situations. I don't much like the mobile interface so tend to use Vector on my phone, and the new Vector might do better at using the limited width of the phone screen. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I share your perspective. I only edit Wikipedia on my laptop, but I'm weird in that I largely do not enjoy doing a lot of things on my phone. I will likely try out the new Vector when I come back to Wikipedia in the future just to give it a solid chance. Aoba47 (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
In case you're curious, I'm sticking with Vector 2022 -- I've tried it on phone, desktop, and iPad and I think it's a definite improvement on all three. I see there's an RfC to try to get the WMF to roll it back, which seems misguided to me -- the WMF did a lot of usability testing for the new skin for readers, who can't customize, and I see no reason to doubt the results of those tests, whereas anyone who is logged it can just go back to the old skin via preferences if they want. Still, that's the Wikipedia community for you -- we must be the crankiest group of customers on the planet. Anyway, I do like the new skin -- I prefer the menu organization, use of the sidebar, position of the ToC, and a couple of nice features like the sticky heading and the Top button at left. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. A RfC was likely not the most constructive route as there are likely better venues to discuss and address concerns and issues. I am glad you are enjoying Vector 2022. I appreciate hearing how different editors interact with Wikipedia and it is interesting to see how likes and dislikes match and differ from my own experience.
I am meh on Vector 2022 myself. I am not a fan of the new organization structure, and on a more superficial note, I just dislike how references/citations are reduced from two columns to one unless the window is better (at least for my browser). I only edit Wikipedia on a laptop so that could factor into my opinion. That being said, I've tried using Vector 2022, and my opinion ranged from indifference to dislike, so I have gone back to the Legacy skin myself. Aoba47 (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Second opinion...
I'm reviewing Vincent Ogé for GAN. I did a spot check of all the sources I could read and access (I'm unable to get Garrigus through Internet Archive, but was able to access Kennedy, King, Lester, Rogozinski, and Tise) and everything I'm checking has some severe issues with not supporting the information at all, contradicting the information it's supposed to be supporting, or making sweeping statements that are likely true but not supported by the source. I'm leaning towards failing it outright without even checking the other criteria, but I'm not sure I'm ready for the shitstorm, since the nominator already has 18 GAs... any advice? I'm usually okay with the occasional "doesn't totally support everything but the bit that's not supported is tiny" happening occasionally, but this is pretty extensive. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
At work so haven't looked, and probably won't be able to post again till this evening, but if you're not exaggerating when you say everything is a problem, then yes, I'd fail it. My recent habit is to stop checking and post a list of problems as soon as the errors become concerning, and if there are more errors elsewhere after the first round of fixes that's a fail. That avoids the "you didn't give me a chance to fix it" issue which given wait times at GA isn't unreasonable. Sandy, I will reply to your talk page notes this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
ChristieBot not accounting for username changes in User:GA bot/Stats
Hi Mike. I'm writing here regarding a bug with User:GA bot/Stats. I've conducted a number of GA reviews under previous account names (User:Mikehawk10 and User:Mhawk10), but these accounts are not being counted under my current username. This isn't the sort of thing that I would have cared about in the past, but now that GA review-to-number-of-GAs is the method by which GAs are sorted, I would like it if the bot would be able to correctly handle username changes rather than having WP:GAN erroneously display that I have never reviewed a GA. At your leisure, would you please fix this bug? — Red-tailed hawk(nest)06:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi -- I've fixed this for your two alternate accounts; it now shows 13 reviews against your current username. I saw your post at the GA proposals page and will respond there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment
Congratulations, Mike Christie! The article you nominated, Doc Savage (magazine), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I just wanted to remind you, that when moving pages with pageswap such as Talk:Anglo–Zanzibar War/GA1, the redirects need to be updated so they don't redirect to themselves. Not sure if you just missed some or what, but I'll fix the 17 that were left. Thanks! :) ~ Eejit43 (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing those -- I had a look and I see those pages ended up as redirects to themselves. Hadn't thought about that but I will take care of those the next time I do page swaps of GA subpages. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Mike, just wanted to check if your various bots are still doing subpage moves? 1999, 2002, and 2007 Scottish Challenge Cup final were recently moved without their subpages and I'm just checking if we are meant to handle this manually going forward. Best, CMD (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't currently have a way to detect or fix that -- to be honest I hadn't even thought about stopping the problem going forward; I've been focused on cleaning up the past. As it happens I have the database about as clean as I can get it (I'm in the middle of composing a post to WT:GAN which you'll see shortly) so I have a breathing space to think about how to find those. I don't think I have any way to fix them automatically, though. The best I could come up with is probably going to be a report posted somewhere periodically that would require either Qwerfjkl's bot or manual fixes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
I've tried to seek solutions to the problem going forward before to no avail. However, manual reporting is a massive step up on what we had before. If you can't think of anything more, that is already great. In the meantime, makes sense to keep whack-a-moling manually I guess! Looking forward to your database post. (Lots of quirks around, I have my own little question going on with the number of current GA articles for example. Scraping the lists and counting them, I get a different number to that generated by Template:GA number. Not sure why yet.) CMD (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
CMD, I've put together a draft report to catch these, but I can't tell if it's not working or if there are simply no un-fixed moves from the last few days. The next time you spot one of these can you let me know before fixing it so I can test it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
I see it caught the Scottish Challenge Cup Final articles. Will it automatically clear them since they have been fixed? CMD (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
No, I need to think about it a bit more. Looking at the code I just wrote, I think it's just finding candidate errors, not actual errors -- I need to have it look to see if the GAN pages were moved on-wiki, instead of checking status in the bot's database, because the database may not have been updated at the time this query runs. I'm sure I can set it up to run a daily query that will append a listing to the page, but making it clear old errors is going to be harder, because there are a ton of moves every day and I don't want to have the bot scan tens of thousands of old moves over and over again to see if they've been fixed. I'll see if I can think of a way around that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Include a link to the GA review it thinks hasn't been moved on the error page, and it can be checked manually by hovering over it? Doesn't clear it on your end of course. CMD (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
CMD, take another look -- I think this format is good for telling you what the status is -- red and blue links, and green links if you have the redirect colouring enabled. For now I don't see how to solve the clearing issue, but these could be manually deleted by whoever does the cleanup. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Not seeing green, but working for me really well. Manual clearing is the time-tested method, we can just use that. What's up with Kingston upon Hull? How is this updating, is it looking at new ones each day, or doing a more general search? CMD (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Kingston upon Hull was moved and then moved back as an improper move. The code looks for a move where the source of the GA subpage is not a redirect; here that's technically true but since the article was moved back it doesn't matter. It should be possible to filter those out. The green must be coming from css I have somewhere but I can't see where it is; it's very handy -- it highlights a redirect as green text and a redirect that is to the same page as the one you're on has a green background. The job runs once a day, just after midnight UTC, and looks at the prior 24 hours, so it shouldn't ever repeat an alert. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I have it on watchlist now. Do you think it's ready to be gnomable? I have a slight concern that we are gaining a proliferation of reports, with Christiebot, Wugbot, and GreenC bot all doing things. Not sure how to pull them together, outside of maybe transcluding all onto a new container page. CMD (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's ready. I agree re multiple reports. I could probably combine this one with User:ChristieBot/GAN errors by sectioning, so the problematic moves are listed after the GAN errors. Transcluding is a good idea for gnoming but wouldn't help with watchlisting; you'd still have to watchlist the constituent pages. What is it that GreenC bot does?
Currently the bot decides what to list as an incomplete move by checking each move to see if the source title of the GA subpage is a redirect, and adding it to the complaints list if not. I could eliminate anything where the source title of the parent page is not a redirect, which would remove Kingston upon Hull from the list, but that would also remove any page swaps, or chained moves (e.g. B -> C and A -> B where B would not list because it would not be a redirect). It might be better to leave those there for a week or two and see how many false positives show up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
OK, I'll leave it as is unless you tell me you need it changed. I'll add another note about this at WT:GAN since the "probably drive-by" report PMC is asking for would be yet another report page; we probably need a central consensus on where everything should be. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks
Just a quick note of thanks for your support of Ignace Tonené at GA and now at FA. Your care in the source analysis is noted and respected. I hope I've addressed the point and hope that someone else will endorse that and that you will be willing to reassess.
I also noted your ethics of doing several reviews for each one of your own, something I hope to pay back in future, when I've learned more about how to get articles to FA status. CT55555(talk) 22:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I really appreciate that. I dislike opposing and in this case it's clear you've put a lot of work and care about getting it right, which makes it a real disappointment. I'm in no doubt that the article can pass FAC, either this time, or next time round. If it does fail this time, I'd be happy to work with you on it before you renominate, if you want. Thanks for the note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Fingers crossed my edits satisfy reviewers. If it were to fail, I would renominate. I feel like the history books didn't give Chief Tonené enough attention and I hope that getting this to FA might help tilt the scales a little.
This is my first FA, so it's been a bit of a learning curve...all good lessons for steps I could have taken earlier on this article and others. CT55555(talk) 22:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 55
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 55, January – February 2023
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
,_frontispiece_-_BL.jpg)
