User talk:Mike Christie/Archive16

FAC reviewer lists

Hi Mike. When I run the FAC reviewer lists app from 2019 to 2020 it gives me 87 reviews - clearly wrong, 196 of my 202 reviews were in these two years. When I run it for 2019 to 2021 it gives me 196 - what it should be giving me for 2018-20. Has the system slipped a year? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll take a look -- not sure what could be causing that but it sounds like the date comparisons are screwed up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Gog, I think this is now fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Mike Christie: yep, that's done it. Thanks Mike. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Aside, Ling struggled with Wikiaddiction ... would sometimes re-appear without saying it was him. Best left alone, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I took editor names from whatever showed up in the history, not the signature, so if someone showed up as an IP or logged in as another user I made no attempt to figure out who it was. The only exception is retired users -- I've used their original names, but will remove them from any query I provide that shows real names/signatures -- their edits are not private, but I see no reason to intrude on their vanishing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You have four reviews for Girth Summit and two nominations (actually 1.5) for GirthSummit. I suspect that you have typoed the latter and that it all refers to Girth Summit. Their signature is confusing. And their scurrilous name got them into trouble at RfA. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed; thanks for spotting that. The most likely errors are user names with slight variations, and typos in the declaration -- I've already found and fixed half a dozen, and I'm sure there are more. Please do let me know about any others you see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

"Elie plus" is now user:Elias Ziade.

Do you have Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Law school of Berytus/archive1 in the system twice? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, will update. No, but I have "Law School of Berytus" and "Law school of Berytus", with archive numbers 1 and 2 respectively. I suspect I'm not handling case sensitivity properly so this could be causing errors in reports -- what are you seeing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I am getting a list where archive 1 shows twice as being archived on 2013-08-22. Let me know if a screenshot would help.
• There still seems to be confusion between user names Elie plus and Elias Ziade. The former is now known by the latter.
• I think that this is a great and balanced set of information and would much regret any of it not being available. Especially the last added. The information would still be findable, nut it would put me to considerable additional work to pull it out, which seems unnecessary. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  Elie Plus/Elias Ziade should now be fixed. The "Law school of Beirut"/"Law School of Beirut" issue is going to be trickier; the problem is that the database is set up to be case-insensitive which means the results you're seeing are confused about which row they should report on. As far as I can tell there is no good Unicode-capable case-sensitive way to set up those columns except for a binary collation, which would apparently mess with the sorting. I'll need to do some testing and see what the effect is. In the meantime, any FAC with multiple archives where the FAC titles differ only by capitalization is going to have this problem. Fortunately there are only a handful. Re your last point: personally I agree that it's worthwhile data and is in any case available with more effort if I take down that page, but I want to be sensitive to the opposition that was expressed last time. So far there's been no explicit opposition but some of those who commented last time have not yet expressed an opinion. However, I don't think I would take the page down unless there was a clear consensus to do so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  The Law school should now be fixed too. It turned out to just be a typo on my part, but in the process I figured out how to deal with case-sensitive comparisons, so I should be able to deal with it if the problem comes up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  And I just realized that one cause of the problem is that someone moved the FAC, seven years after it closed! I've asked Sandy if that's a problem but I think it's probably OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Ping at FAC talk

Hi Mike, just to let you know that I have seen your ping at FAC talk, but I've been sidetracked - my husband came down with a sudden and potentially serious health problem (not covid!) so I'm offline for a bit until things resolve. I need to backtrack, find that old discussion, and try to remember what why my thinking was at that time before I can make a reasonable reply. Sorry for taking such a long time! Victoria (tk) 00:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

No hurry, of course, and I hope everything turns out OK for your husband. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, me too! Victoria (tk) 00:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, I was acknowledging your ping, but I'm not opposing anything. I've not yet looked at your new tool but it seems to be welcome, the result of a tremendous amount of work, and useful to FAC. Rather than posting elsewhere, I'll just say here that the little I can remember of the previous conversation some years ago and my subsequent oppose was based on the concern that posting ratios - nominations to reviews - might encourage even more drive-by reviews, of which I'd been noting a number at the time, thereby watering down the review process. I also felt that there might be an element of making those whose review numbers are low feel they had to review more or even feel shamed at not reviewing. Those are now years' old thoughts, probably not well articulated. Based on a comment I've seen above, I'd certainly not oppose the use of the tool. Hope this is what you meant by pinging? Victoria (tk) 19:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that was exactly what I was wondering about. I appreciate you taking the time to clarify. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem. This was quicker than digging through archives and rewinding through old discussions, which I haven't had time to do. Happy this is resolved. Thanks for all the work. Victoria (tk) 22:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Loch Muick

Hi Mike. Is there any special significance to the photograph of Loch Muick? I ask because in 2006 I camped not far from the hill in the background and have a picture of the reverse view. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I used to be in the oil business, and visited Aberdeen a couple of times; one of those times I had to stay in Europe over the weekend (it was November) and decided to spend it in Ballater before catching a plane on Sunday evening, probably to Copenhagen or Amsterdam. I walked around the Loch that weekend and took a couple of pictures, and started the article on the loch. I've always liked both pictures -- the other one is my PC desktop background. I went back with my wife a year or two ago and walked around it again (in September this time) and found it just as beautiful, though less cold! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It is certainly beautiful in the area. And it can certainly get cold. My user page image, which is also my PC background, demonstrates this from a camping trip a bit to the south west. It's nippy round Loch Muick at the moment, see the third photo down from this. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Snowing here on Long Island too, though only 4-8 inches predicted, not the 12 I see the UK southeast is going to get. A good day to stay in and do a FAC review.... Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of Whitehawk Camp

Congratulations, Mike Christie! The article you nominated, Whitehawk Camp, 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, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you today for Saturn (magazine), "about an obscure magazine that began by publishing science fiction, and ended as a weird menace magazine. As with many of the shorter-lived magazines from the 1950s it rarely published distinguished material, but the editor, Donald Wollheim, was able to get quite a few well-known writers to contribute." - I have a FAC open, but will call you to it only if I can't "wake up" those who commented already ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. My Wikipedia time is going to be limited for a while as I'm starting an off-wiki project, so I don't think I'll be able to help with the FAC, I'm afraid. I don't expect to be nominating or reviewing very much until this project is well along. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Enjoy that project. Mine seems on a good way, as of last night. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hey Mike! Hope you and yours are all well. And I hope you can either help or direct me to help on a question I have. I have been working on Problem of evil, and while it was l-o-ong when I got there, it is wa-a-y too long now that I have added a bunch. I want to split it, but I don't really know how to go about doing that. Also, it looks to me like the logical place to split is at 'Monotheistic religions', and while that would improve the quality of the first half of the article, I also think the second half would not make a good stand alone article. It won't make much sense without the rest, even though it has a lot of repetition in it. What exactly is a stub and would that apply? What should I do and how Mike? Should I begin with an RFC on the Talk page? I don't want to blow anything up! I need the benefit of your wisdom. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

PS - just so you know, I read the instructions and couldn't make heads or tails of them. Do I make a draft? Do I put the excised section on my sandbox to be worked on? It seems like step one and three are the same but they listed separately, so how are they different? I probably need to accept that Sandy was right and split BC as well, much as I hate doing it. I need to know how to do this because it seems like long articles are my forte. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Jen, good to hear from you. I had a look at the article and my first question is how would you split it? I can see a couple of different ways to do it. I think my instinct would be to go for summary style, rather than trying to cut it down the middle. So for example you might create an article called religious responses to the problem of evil, and put everything from sections 4 and 5 into the new article, and then reduce those sections in the main article substantially -- just summarizing the subsidiary article. If you look at science you'll see there's a "Main article:..." link in several sections; that's how you alert the reader that there is more information about this available, but that the article they're reading gives a summary. And other sections of problem of evil could be summarized too. Generally I think you're better off giving the reader more digestible chunks in this way. I had to do this with radiocarbon dating -- originally that article was longer than problem of evil, so I split out calibration of radiocarbon dates and radiocarbon dating considerations. I'd like that article to be shorter still, but it's under 10,000 words which I try to make a hard limit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that was my first idea as well, split off sections 4 and 5, and maybe 7, then split off 6 separately, that's where 'monotheistic religions' starts, so "religious responses" would be a good title for the first and philosophical views or some such thing for the second. The page information on this article says Page length (in bytes) is 185,021!!! That's crazy! I will go back through the sections I wrote and try to edit them down, but there is no way to get this down to ten thou without splitting.

Each of these theodicies deserves an article of its own, and a short summary only in the primary article, so perhaps what needs doing is for every theodicy to be split off separately. For example, "freewill" was written before me - I only edited the two paragraphs on Alvin Plantinga because the person who wrote it originally didn't understand it - Plantinga's really dense reading - anyway, it contains critiques and rejoinders and all kinds of detail that only an article on freewill should contain, but it's all here instead. It needs an article of its own. I want to do what's best for the encyclopedia and our readers and I do agree that splitting it is the way to go, and I'm not even afraid to be bold - but I don't know how to go about doing this. Say we split it in two at religious responses, then we also split each major theodicy into an article of its own and only have short summaries in this one - where and how would I begin? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Mike, I see above that you are getting busy in the real world. Would you prefer that I ask someone else for help? Do you know someone who is experienced at splitting articles that you would recommend? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok I went and asked Sandy so you are off the hook if you want to be. Thank you Mike. Good luck with your project. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Sandy is always a good resource for things like this; I had a quick look and she's saying exactly what I would have said -- create your new article first, then cut down the existing one. And yes, I'm busy in real life, but not too busy to answer questions -- I just don't expect to be doing much nominating or reviewing for a while, though I might make exceptions for reviewing occasionally if it's something I am interested in. Best of luck with the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you dear heart! I got it done - with my heart thumping!! It was something new for me so it was fun and exciting! I think it has made two articles that are both superior to the one old one. The main article is 8400 words now. I knew Sandy would be a good choice - it's good to know there are good people like her and you out there willing to help others. Thanx again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Whitehawk Camp scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Whitehawk Camp article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 29, 2021. 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/April 29, 2021, 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.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, January – February 2021

• New partnerships: PNAS, De Gruyter, Nomos
• 1Lib1Ref
• Library Card

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Cueva de las Manos

Hi! Are you okay with providing feedback on an article that I've been working on, Cueva de las Manos?
Thanks!
Tyrone Madera (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes -- I will try to take a look this weekend. I'm a bit busy off-wiki at the moment but I think I can find some time. Are you looking for comments about the content, or writing, or anything in particular? It's not an area I am expert in though I think I have a couple of books that mention it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!

I was thinking about discussing potential changes/getting some direct help with the article (such as with formatting). Help with citations would be very welcome; I have scoured my local libraries for information on the cave so some wikilibrary help/book help would be much appreciated.

(Apologies if this laundry list appears as daunting. Don't feel like you're under any obligation to help with it all.)

Writing, of course, could always be improved. My overall goal is to try to get the article to a C or B class article. When it comes to Content, I'm generally unsure about because I don't know how much detail is warranted, given the relatively small amount of current content (but large amount of literature). Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Is that too broad, or is that a good amount of information? Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi -- sorry, been too busy even to glance at the article yet. Will try to look in the next few days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks! Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Responded at the article's talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks; leaving a reply. Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

TFA

wild garlic

Thank you today for Whitehawk Camp, "about a Neolithic causewayed enclosure in Sussex. This is the second in what I hope will be a series of these articles; the last one was Knap Hill. Causewayed enclosures are a very early relic of the British Neolithic, dating from about the first half of the fourth millennium BC; nobody knows exactly what they were used for, though there are plenty of theories"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Long time

Hi, it's been a long time. Sorry I was committed to other articles, hence I couldn't get to work on taking Sathi Leelavathi to FAC again. Also, it looks like Laser brain is no longer active, hence I cannot confirm if his concerns have been addressed. If you are free or have time, I hope you can re-check the article and tell me whether I can proceed. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi -- unfortunately you caught me at a bad time; I'm busy in real life and have been scarcely editing for a month or more. I would still like to do a pre-FAC review but I just can't commit at this point. If I find time I will look in. Sorry -- and best of luck with the article if you go ahead with it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mike, since I just reached out to you, I just wanted to say your message here is noted! No rush in getting back to me with a reply, etc. Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 43

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 43, March – April 2021

• New Library Card designs
• 1Lib1Ref May

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Dark Ages (historiography)

Hi Mike. Can you give your opinion on Talk:Dark Ages (historiography)#First sentence. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Image-related question

Hello again. I hope you are doing well and staying safe. I have a quick image-related question. I am currently rewriting the Veronica Clare article for a possible FAC. It would probably best if I could somehow find an image of the show's star, Laura Robinson, but I am honestly quite terrible at working with images. Would you have any advice on how to locate an appropriate image of this individual to upload to Wikimedia Commons? If not, would you know any editors that I could approach for help? My last experiences on Wikimedia Commons was pretty bad, but I have a feeling this will crop up in a FAC so I would like to get some advice on how to do this properly and hopefully without any issue. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, that's something I have almost no experience in. I think one of the media-related WikiProjects might be a good place to ask -- WP:FILMS, or WP:TV, perhaps. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response. That makes sense to me. I have personally never had much luck when reaching out to WikiProjects for advice. I can actually only think of one instance where I received any form of feedback, but I still should at least try because it could lead to something very helpful. Thank you again and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  (watching:) Aoba47, for image questions, I go to GRuban. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47 and Gerda Arendt: Got Gerda's ping; Mike, apologies for hijacking your talk page like this, but this is where the ping was. Unfortunately I couldn't find any free licensed images of Laura Robinson after a quick search; it's not the easiest thing, as she has a relatively common name, so there are other people and has apparently changed her appearance a few times. BUT! I found her web site, https://www.laurarobinson.com/ and have a possibly intriguing suggestion. First, from her web site, she seems not adverse to getting publicity. Second, she's the inventor of a board game we have a rather large article on, Balderdash! Between that and being the star of this show you're writing a rather large article on, I'm pretty sure she will meet Wikipedia:Notability; in fact, I'm surprised we don't have an article on her already. So I suggest you email her (address on that page, GET IN TOUCH button) and ask her for some images. Now, normally writing article subjects for images has a fairly low success rate in my experience, maybe 10-20%, but in this case, I think there is a much better chance, given the above factors. Not only might you be able to get an image of her, but she might be able to get images and/or other useful content from the actual show. This is what I would write:

Hi, I'm a volunteer editor for Wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia you may have heard of. I'm trying to improve our article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veronica_Clare the television show which you starred in. Would you be able to release one or more images of yourself, or of the show, that you own the rights to? We would need a photo that is free for everyone to reuse and edit, like the rest of the Wikipedia, so we can't just grab any one off the Internet.

If you have one or more images that you would like us to be able to use, and own the copyright to - this is usually by you being the photographer, or by having the photographer explicitly give you the rights - you could put it up on a page of your web site, https://www.laurarobinson.com/, with some text like "I own the rights to this image, and release it under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/", and send me a link to where it lives. Then we could use it in our article. More details about the image (where taken, when, by whom, what context) would be nice, but not strictly necessary. The license release is.

Or you could email the image with similar release text to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (copying me), but this may involve a few emails back and forth, to double check that you are you, and that the photographer truly gave you the rights, and so forth, and therefore take longer.

I also think we may be able to write a Wikipedia article about you personally, if you are interested. Would you like us to write one? This would be separate from the article on the show. If so, please say.

(My name, link to my Wikipedia user page, possibly a bit about other articles I've written so she has some idea what this would look like when done)

If you like, I can help, as she seems like an interesting person - actress and game designer! - and I would be interested in helping with the article on her, if not on the show. Or possibly even do it myself if you aren't interested. My speed in writing articles varies, but (unlike Gerda's) is generally not fast, from weeks to months. In which case I would certainly send that email myself; but I will give you first dibs! --GRuban (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Just for fun: Sara Hershkowitz managed to get a better pic on her page than my snapshot. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• @GRuban: Thank you for the response. I agree that Robinson's career is interesting both as an actor and a game developer. I also think that she meets the notability requirements for her own article, but unfortunately, I do not see myself working on one in the near future. After doing substantial rewriters to the Veronica Clare article, I have decided to take a small break from new projects. I can definitely try to help you (or any interested editor) in creating the article or accessing resources.

• I appreciate your email template as I have always struggled with how to communicate image policies since they can be rather confusing even to Wikipedia editors. I had run into a similar problem when I contacted individuals for images for the Leah LaBelle article. I can send Robinson an email later today, but it may be best if you did it since you will likely be the one making her Wikipedia page and I feel a little bad just taking your email template for myself. I will leave that decision up to you though. I also feel somewhat weird doing it as the Veronica Clare article does point out the criticism towards her acting so I hope she does not take any offense to it (as I am genuinely interested in the show and her career in general). I hope this response makes sense and is not too ramble-y. Thank you again for taking the time to respond and help. One of these days, I will get better at images lol. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

'To whom it may concern: I emailed Laura Robinson, copying Aoba47, she hasn't gotten back yet, but it's only been a day or two. Meanwhile, I started Draft:Laura McKinlay Robinson, and dropped a lot of sources on Draft talk:Laura McKinlay Robinson - most are interviews and blogs, but a few are newspapers. So we should be able to put something together (unless she writes back and says "please, please don't do this"). Meanwhile we can migrate our discussion to there and off Mike's talk page! --GRuban (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Y'all are welcome to come back any time! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

And we're live!

@Aoba47 and Gerda Arendt: (not pinging Mike, as it's his talk!) In case you're wondering what ever became of this: this did! Laura McKinlay Robinson! We even got an image that Aoba47 thinks will be good for the Veronica Clare article (so I left it out of this one; you can see it and yet another at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Laura_McKinlay_Robinson). Took some research, editing (including by Aoba47, thanks!), emailing ... the subject may yet have even more comments, but I think it's pretty good! Will nominate for DYK soon; she is so multifaceted, the hook possibilities are numerous. Suggestions? Other comments? Thank you all so much, this was fun! --GRuban (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

If you want to help, can you advise - is "Television production and other game design" better as one article section or two? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laura_McKinlay_Robinson&diff=1027779821&oldid=1027779553 is where I merge them, and I'm not sure whether that's a good idea or a bad one. --GRuban (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

GRuban, thank you for all the work you have done for this! Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Thomas J. Bray for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thomas J. Bray is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas J. Bray until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Clarityfiend (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Science fiction barnstar!

		The Science Fiction Barnstar
		Mike, thank you for your tireless work bringing these old SF pubs to FA life. I've read quite a bit of "Madge" in the course of my Galactic Journey, so your latest is near and dear to my heart. Neopeius (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Imaginative Tales scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Imaginative Tales article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 5, 2021. 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/July 5, 2021, 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.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article "about another minor science fiction magazine from the 1950s"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Your Fantastic Tales edit

On July 20, 2021, you deleted this addition of mine:

"A copy of the magazine briefly appears in Back to the Future, in George McFly's bedroom the night that his son Marty visits him in disguise, pretending to be "Darth Vader.""

The magazine's appearance in the very popular movie is, I'm sure, far and away the most prominent reference to the magazine in all of pop culture, seen by tens of millions of people, and is thus significant. Please do not delete it again. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elendil's Heir (talk • contribs)

References

Elendil's Heir (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Elendil's Heir

Hi -- to sign, use four tildes, like so: ~~~~ -- what you did left a section break so I've deleted it and added a template that will show the time of your comment and a link to your user page.

I've replied at the article talk page since I think that's the best place for this discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 45

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 45, May – June 2021

• Library design improvements continue
• New partnerships
• 1Lib1Ref update

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 46

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 46, July – August 2021

• Library design improvements deployed
• New collections available in English and German
• Wikimania presentation

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you know anyone who might be interested...

Hey, Mike. It's been a while... Do you know anyone who might be interested in helping with this? ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, great to see you editing again! I can’t think of anyone off hand, but maybe a TPS will chime in. It’s not something I’ll have time for, I’m afraid; I’ve been editing very little this year because of a real-life project. (I have a FAC lined up that I’ll put up in the next month or two but that’ll be my first since January or so.) Good luck with the article — it’s already a testament to the immense amount of work put in, but of course it would be nice to get the gold star too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Good luck with your projects! ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Mullum Malarum

Mullum Malarum 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. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

If you're not interested, please let me know. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi -- sorry, should have replied earlier. I'm probably not going to comment at the GAR. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi Mike. There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#RFC: Regnal names which you might be interested in. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks; will take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

In appreciation

		The Reviewers Award
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of another year during which you have generated countless thorough, detailed and actionable reviews at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Gog! I really appreciate this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

C14 dating

Hi Mike. I have come across a method of C14 dating new to me. This is dating unknown dendro sequences by finding a ring with a C14 spike caused by a solar storm of known date. Wooden houses in the L'Anse aux Meadows Viking site were dated to 1042 by finding the ring with a spike due to the 993 solar storm. See [1]. I have added this information to the Dendrochronology article but maybe it should also be added to a C14 article if it is not already in there. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

PS I see that the BBC is also reporting the study at [2]. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I saw a piece in the NY Times about this yesterday; very interesting. We do have 774–775 carbon-14 spike and 993–994 carbon-14 spike. I think maybe radiocarbon calibration would be the place to cover this, though that article isn't in the best possible shape -- it's made of bits I cut from radiocarbon dating for length reasons. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of The Trundle

Congratulations, Mike Christie! The article you nominated, The Trundle, 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, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Red (Taylor Swift album)

Hi Mike Christie. Thank you for not blocking Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Red (Taylor Swift album)/archive1. I wasn't as attentive there at the discussion mostly because it has been one heck of a past week and a bit for myself off-wiki with a lot going on. That said, I do take your comments seriously and want to improve this article and discuss further. Was I on the right track for the new paragraph that I added to Red (Taylor Swift album)'s Critical Reception section? I would love to work with you on improving this so that it as good as it can be, but need some guidance/help here. Thank you for your time. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi -- I'm glad to hear that you'd like to continue to improve that section. I could see you'd put some thought into the additional text you added, and the section wasn't terrible, so I didn't think an oppose would be fair. I probably don't have time to collaborate with you on it, I'm afraid. I've put most of what I think I know about reception sections into WP:RECEPTION; I would just suggest that you look at the comments there and see what might be applicable to your article (or any future articles you work on that have a similar section). The only point not covered by that essay is that I do think you need to make an effort to read every review by the most important review sources, and try to integrate those. When a Wikipedia reader reads your article, they're going to look at that section and assume you picked those points, and those illustrative quotes, as representative, and so they should be. Congratulations on the FA! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Nuckelavee Edit

Hello Mike Christie, a colleague of mine has been interested in something that they had noticed around August 8th, 2021 on the Nuckelavee Wikipedia page; an edit, that was featured in the "Confinement" part of the page's content - a subsection of "City of London", under which was text that said "running nuckelavee creature crash cars taxi london bus destroy london". As I looked through the edit history, it is evident that the edit had been made under your name on August 6th, 2021. (August 8th, 2021). I have been assigned to research this matter, and I have been curious what was your intention of said edit. You have presented yourself as a man with credible edits and sources, yet this edit seems like something completely out of your norm. Moreover, I had found 3 edits in total made under your name: (June 24th, 2021 and December 26th, 2020) but there seems to be no difference to the original article. So, Mike, please inform me. What was the message behind your most recent edit? Have you, perhaps, been hacked? Or just someone you might know messing around under your account name? In fact, are you even aware of this edit? Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N64braincells (talk • contribs) 14:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi — your link is incorrect; I think you mean this edit. I was reverting the addition of a popular culture section; I didn’t notice that when I did so some vandalism that had been removed by the editor I was reverting was restored because of my revert. I’m not sure what you mean by “no difference to the original article”; each of the three edits I made was to remove a popular culture or media section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 47

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 47, September – October 2021

• On-wiki Wikipedia Library notification rolling out
• Search tool deployed
• New My Library design improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of demonstrations of civility far above and beyond any reasonable expectation. And several unreasonable ones. Well done. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

File:Fantastic fonts high res.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fantastic fonts high res.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Mike Christie. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

New reply feature

Have you tried the new reply feature? It's pretty handy. Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Just enabled it; thanks for the heads up! I'll be curious to see how it copes with complicated indentations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome! Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Mike Christie. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Dorothy Malone (writer) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dorothy Malone (writer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy Malone (writer) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Star Garnet (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiglaf of Mercia edits

Can you please explain why you do not consider this to be a reliable academic source? I took it from an academic article from a journal called Foundations, which concerns Medieval Genealogy. Furthermore, I believe I made it clearly it is an speculation by the author, as nothing about Wiglaf's wife ancestry is known for sure,besides Ford Mommaerts-Browne is scholar who specializes in the High middle ages, so if you could give me a reason to why you do not consider him to be a reliable source?

Frid-arlon (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

If this were a theory with any academic backing I’d expect it to be mentioned by an academic historian, but as far as I can see it has not. I also can’t find anything to substantiate that Mommaerts-Browne is a historian with standing appropriate for this topic; being a respected genealogical researcher doesn’t make one a reliable source for an Anglo-Saxon topic. Pinging user Agricolae for an opinion, since I know they are knowledgeable about both historical and genealogical topics. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Mike see also User talk:Dudley Miles#Wiglaf of Mercia. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Io, Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

And the same to you. I hope we get to see more of your articles at FAC this year. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Science Fiction Adventures (1956 magazine), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Larry Shaw.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Asking for content advice

Hi, I am pretty new here compared to many veterans on Wikipedia (like you!), and I would like to know how to push an article to featured article quality. I have tried exactly that for over three months now on SpaceX Starship and the article is now somewhat good in my eyes. However, after two failed FAC, I don't think the article would pass its third without very through preparation. Therefore, I want to obtain advice from people like you who are very experienced in the process and make the article has more chance of surviving the candidacy. Thanks in advance! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not an area I'm particularly knowledgeable about, and although I have a few days slack at the moment I'm expecting to be very busy in real life shortly, so I'm afraid I can't commit to any formal help. I took a look at the FACs and the peer review (and I see you've opened another one, which is a good idea). The most recent FAC failed on sourcing, it appears. You might try asking Urve, or Hurricane Noah, the reviewers at that FAC, if they feel the issues they identified have been fixed. You could also try asking at WT:FAC for a mentor. If nobody volunteers as a mentor, you could ask for assistance from other editors you can see working on similar articles -- look for high-quality articles on large-scale engineering or aviation or spaceflight topics. Are there any active WikiProjects that are relevant to the topic? I wouldn't worry too much about prose at first; the main thing to get right first is the content, which means sourcing and organization -- the Guild of Copyeditors does a decent job and will help you polish the prose, but they only polish -- they can't fix any issue that goes much deeper than sentence structure. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the advices! I will try my best to do them, especially collaborating on similar topics. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

		Season's Greetings
		Here's wishing you a marvellous holiday and the best of 2022 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, and the same to you! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suspense Magazine

Hi! Letting you know I've brought this to AfD because of the reasons I noted when I PRODded it. No issue with your recreation, but I think it needs discussion to see whether it's notable. Thanks! Star Mississippi 01:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note. I've !voted keep at the AfD; as I say there, you might not immediately realize that it's a different magazine. It's certainly not a major magazine but I think there are enough sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

And I now realize I should have made it clear in the edit summary when I created the article that it's a different magazine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries, that was 99% on me. I should have quit when I realized I didn't unclick the template notification box. Apologies again and have a great day Star Mississippi 17:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Mind Magic (disambiguation)

Just a heads up - I moved the DAB page Mind Magic (disambiguation) to Mind Magic since there was no article at the base name. Leschnei (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

D'oh! You can tell I need more practice at these; I knew that but just wasn't thinking. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

FACs note

FYI to Wehwalt, Aoba47, Gerald Waldo Luis, and JBchrch: I've been slow replying at FAC because I'm dealing with a house problem -- we had a carbon monoxide release on Sunday and now have no heating at the house while we deal with it, so it's too cold to sit at the computer. I've been snatching a few moments at the computer but I can't guarantee replies till we have the heat back on. With luck that will be the next couple of days, but if we have to have the furnace replaced it could be a week or more. I may be able to do some work from my ancient iPad in the basement which does have electric heat, and will try that if this drags on. So, sorry about the delays, but I will get back to the FACs as soon as I can. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries Mike, I'm terribly sorry to hear this, this sounds like a pretty bad situation. Best of luck with the fixing and the cold until then. There's absolutely no rush for my FAC. In case you really need heat, note that you can always mine bitcoins. JBchrch talk 17:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about to hear regarding the situation, Mike, hope everything gets resolved soon, and stay safe. And no rush, it's still not the end of the world :) GeraldWL 17:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear about your situation. There is absolutely no rush with the FACs and any real world issues should take precedence over anything on Wikipedia. I hope that everything is repaired quickly and things work out okay. Aoba47 (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Apollo 17

Hope all is well after your recent travails. Do you have time to review the above FAC, which is somewhat languishing?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Not sure if I’ll have time tonight but definitely this week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Wehwalt, looks like a couple of reviewers have jumped in; do you want me to go ahead with a review in a day or three once those are done? Or take a rain check and jump in early on your next nomination? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a rain check, unless you feel like source reviewing Double florin.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. I'd already had a quick look through the article and was planning to read it in more detail, as it happens; I think these oddities of failed coins are very interesting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 48

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 48, November – December 2021

• 1Lib1Ref 2022
• Wikipedia Library notifications deployed

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Does this mean...

That I can nominate another 2000 or so FACs before I have to do a review? (tongue very firmly in cheek). Ealdgyth (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hah. I doubt anyone would complain if either you or Nikki nominated a stream of FACs for a while without reviewing. But actually that's the reason why the last column in the tool shows data only for the last 12 months; it's a live community and we want participation now. Similarly I think if someone nominated a ton of FACs years ago without reviewing, but is a good reviewer now, that's fine; there's no need to "catch up". Good to see you active at FAC again, by the way. Are you planning to nominate anything soon? I am sure I owe you at least a couple of reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I will probably be nominating ... something... later. Not sure what. I'm still trying to get organized from the move, the computer gaming job exploded into high intensity with the lockdowns, and I'm trying to actually do some research on horse stuff outside of wiki. I've got some stuff I wanna bring through GAN ... but I think Reginald de Warenne or Peter de Maulay are probably the next most likely things through FAC. Might be a while though (and I'm certainly not making friends with some of my source reviews.... heh.) Ealdgyth (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I could do a pre-FAC review on one or both, if you like. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Later? I've still got to resurrect the bookshelves so I can get to the sources...Ealdgyth (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) *immediately watchlists*  ;) SN54129 13:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of The Shadow (magazine)

Congratulations, Mike Christie! The article you nominated, The Shadow (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, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The Trundle

You have reverted my edit to the References section. I'm afraid that I don't follow your edit summary. It depends on what device you read the article. On my laptop, your edit puts the citations into two columns. Viewing on an iPad or iPhone, however, the citations are strung out in one long line, whereas the template puts them into two columns. Could you have another look? I'm not going to revert - it's too minor to worry much about. Best wishes. --Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 10:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting; the raw references tag is supposed to act just like {{reflist}}, including setting the same default number of columns. I have a poor connection at the moment and can't easily look at other pages but will try to figure out what the difference is later today, or tomorrow. The other reason I reverted is that reflist is a pain if you edit with VE, as I do; it won't update the refs as you work. Thanks for the note. I'll ping you when I figure out what the difference is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Daemonickangaroo2018: I posted a question at Template talk:Reflist. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I am seeing errror messsages on refs 16, 31 and 78. I think they are showing because of code I have recently added to User:Dudley Miles/common.css. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Those should now be fixed. Really I should fix them by archiving those URLs but I'm on an iPad and away from my PC for a couple of days so I'll do it next week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The Trundle scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the The Trundle article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 15, 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/January 15, 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.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

January songs

in friendship

Thank you today for the article "about an archaeological site in Sussex that contains an Iron Age hillfort and a Neolithic causewayed enclosure. Causewayed enclosures were new to archaeology in the 1920s and it was one of the first to be found and excavated, and also one of the first archaeological sites to be identified by aerial photographs, now a standard procedure."! - Happy new year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! 2022 began happily with vacation. I uploaded images but stopped at 22 January - click on songs. 30 January means 10 years of Precious. It's also the birthday of a friend, - I'm so happy I mentioned his DYK on his 90th birthday when he was still alive. I have a great singer on DYK whom I heard, Elena Guseva, and wait for a Recent death appearance of Georg Christoph Biller whom I saw in action. Admins seem not to work on Sundays ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

February songs

frozen

my turn today: my joy - more on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

stand and sing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Good Job!

		The Good Jb! Award
		I'm very thankful for your WP:RECEPTION essay! It's a really helpful guide for writing them, and I refer to it often. Panini! • 🥪 15:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad people find it useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

In appreciation

		The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of the vast number of thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The Shadow (magazine) scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the The Shadow (magazine) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 11, 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/April 11, 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.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marvel Tales and Unusual Stories, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carl Jacobi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Terminator 2 Critical Reception

Hi Mike, if you get a chance would you take a look at Terminator_2:_Judgment_Day#Critical_response and give me your opinion on it? I've tried to use what I've learned from RoboCop. Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I've read through it a couple of times. I think the first paragraph has a good sequence of comments, but it could use a little more connective tissue to make that apparent to the reader. For example, for the last two comments I think we could put the two comments about the special effects together -- maybe "Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune gave the film three-and-a-half stars, describing the film as 'one terrific action picture, more enjoyable than the original'. Siskel praised 'truly spectacular and at times mystifying special effects', and Kim Newman, who gave it five stars out of five, agreed: 'No-one can walk out of this and say...'" That cuts Siskel's comment about the "surprisingly solid acting", but could that be connected with Ebert's comments about the acting "...an intriguing hero and fierce heroine, and a young boy who is played by Furlong with guts and energy"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

FFS, I'm really sorry Mike, I linked you to the wrong place -__- It was meant to be User:Darkwarriorblake/Terminator_2:_Judgment_Day#Critical_response. I am so sorry. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries, that does look much better! I made a few copyedits which you're free to ignore -- I personally don't much like "wrote that" in these sections, but that might be just me. I would like to review the article when you take it to FAC, but I can't promise I'll have time; I can promise I won't be complaining about the critical reception section, though! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, that was my first pass so it tends to have words in it that can be overused. It won't be going to FA any time soon, I've still got Back to the Future, Aliens, and Total Recall to do. Although I might skip to Total Recall and Terminator 2 because I need to go back and apply things I've learned to the former two. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, ping me when you do nominate it. It's long been one of my favourite action movies, though I should never have watched the bloated director's cut. Can I persuade you to do a couple of FAC reviews, by the way? Not now, particularly, but in general. You understand how to do popular culture articles, and those often have the most problems at FAC; more experienced nominators reviewing is always a good thing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind reviewing pop culture ones, I just don't see them up there a lot. I'll try to take a look more often. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkwarriorblake (talk • contribs) 19:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of G-8 and His Battle Aces

Congratulations, Mike Christie! The article you nominated, G-8 and His Battle Aces, 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, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Fan editor interview for PhD project

Hi, Mike Christie! I believe we have only 'met' in passing at FAC, so I'd first like to introduce myself. My name is Gen. Quon, and I'm an editor who has been active for the last decade or so working largely on TV articles. I'm also currently an LIS PhD student, and I'm studying fan editors on Wikipedia for my dissertation (more info about my project can be found here). For the last few weeks, I've been reaching out to editors who work in "fannish" content areas, and based on your interest in sci-fi and fantasy lit of yesteryear, I though you'd be a unique person to talk to (I haven't managed to talk to many lit fans, sadly). Would this be something that you'd be interested in? Either way, thanks for reading!--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 15:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be glad to help. Let me know what's involved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Excellent to hear! Did I send an email your way? I can't remember... I'll go ahead and send one to be safe!--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 14:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Wait, I'm dumb, haha. I totally already chatted with you about this! Haha, please ignore that second email!--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 14:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

No problem! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh wait, that was to another Mike. We should be all good!--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 14:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I think we're all Mikes on this bus! --Orange Mike | Talk 15:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't tell you how many times I've heard "Hey, Mike!" in a pub, and seen five other heads around the pub turn along with mine.... Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I think I got it...

Or, rather, got them all.. thank you. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 49

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 49, January – February 2022

• New library collections
• Blog post published detailing technical improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

FAC assist?

Hi Mike, hope you are well. You were kind enough to review my last Gillingham FAC, I wondered if you might have time to take a look at my current one, which is struggling to attract any interest? No worries if not. All the best, ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm travelling until the middle of next week, and won't be doing any reviewing till I get back, but I will probably do some reviewing then. I usually work from the older FACs upwards through the list, but will keep an eye on yours and I should be able to review it if the coords warn it's in danger of being archived. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

G-8 and His Battle Aces scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 5 May 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 5, 2022, or to make more comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

But first today: thank you for The Shadow (magazine), "about the pulp magazine associated with the phrase "The Shadow knows". The Shadow was invented to read a line on a radio show, and ended up as a franchise"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of Marvel Tales and Unusual Stories

Congratulations, Mike Christie! The article you nominated, Marvel Tales and Unusual Stories, 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) 00:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

In appreciation

		The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of the vast number of thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your dedication to carrying out a high level of FAC reviews in both quality and quantity, particularly source reviewing. (t · c) buidhe 12:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! My work life has recently changed so I have more time for Wikipedia, which is part of the reason why I'm able to do more reviews. I don't know how long the enthusiasm will last -- it does seem to go in spurts, but we'll see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Combe Hill

Hi Mike. That view seems to be looking somewhere between southwestwards and westwards. It's not very clear, but the sea and what seems to be some buildings are just visible on the left. I think the photo has been taken from approximately 50.799407°N 0.2379054°E / 50.799407; 0.2379054 (in the centre of this map): the sharply downward-sloping bit on the left would be equivalent to the very steep slope on the east (right) of the map, while the fenced-off bit seems to correlate with the still fairly steep part in the top left quarter of the map (I think I can just make out a fence line). The trees in the distance would then correlate with the vaguely mushroom-shaped copse on the map, and the distant buildings would be the east end of Seaford based on the assumed angle. I haven't walked across this hill but I have been close to it to the south and north within the last 2 years. I will be going to Eastbourne at some point in the next few months, and it wouldn't be difficult for me to divert and have a look/take some pix, but it looks like a whole batch of good ones has very recently been uploaded to Geograph (not yet on Commons): see here and on subsequent subpages. Hope that helps! Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there are several good pictures; I had a hard time picking which one to use, but this seems to show the hilltop pretty clearly so it seemed a good choice. After staring at the map location you link to for a while, I think the photo is looking east -- that big scoop on the left of shot looks like the scarp down to the north. The OS map shows barrows on a rise to the east of the site and there's a small rise in the background of this shot. But I can't be certain, so I think we have to leave the caption as it is, indefinite. Thanks for taking a look! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I noticed that the coordinates in the coord template were pointing to west of the Meridian rather than east, so I have fixed them just now. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I hadn't noticed that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

GAN review requested

Saw the above and thought I might trouble you for a review. I've put forward Free Comic Book Day for GAN (review page) and hope to promote it for DYK on 7 May, the 20th edition of the event. I'm a little worried about the timeline as I haven't attracted a reviewer at GAN or from Wikiproject Comics. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi -- I'm currently focusing on FAC reviews, but may start picking up some GAN reviews in a week or two -- if I do I'll keep an eye out for your nomination. Though I generally tend to start with the oldest reviews, to be honest, unless it's an area I have a particular interest in. Good luck with the nomination if I don't get to it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Christianization of the Roman Empire

Hello Mike! I don't know if you remember me, but you were terrifically kind to me when I was attempting to take Biblical criticism to FA. You said then that if you could ever do anything for me you would. Now I am trying to take advantage of that. I have another long article that has been nominated for GA twice. The first reviewer quit, and then it seems to have automatically failed because it was abandoned. The second reviewer quick-failed it without giving it a chance. So, it's failed twice without ever having had an actual review. The article is controversial for some, I understand that. This field has shifted dramatically in the last fifty years, and not only are a lot of people having trouble letting go of the old opinions, these old views continue to be posted on WP as if they were still current. This distresses me Mike, both for my field of study and for the quality of WP as an encyclopedia. I know you are an FA reviewer, (and I would be willing to do that again if anyone said that was appropriate), but it's nominated for GA right now because I'm a big chicken. If you would look at it, and tell me if you think it stands a snowball's chance in Hell to get any recognition, at all, anywhere, I would be ever so grateful. It's long and complicated, but it's a big subject Mike - a big controversial subject. I have put a lot of work into it. Everything in it is accurate, represents the current majority views, and is well sourced. I hate for it to be treated badly because some people don't like change. Please help me Obi wan, you're my only hope. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Jen, of course I remember! I should have some time to take a look starting later this week, and I'll post to the talk page then. I look forward to it! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Bless you! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know I am attempting to rewrite the article based on your suggestion of following chronology. It is actually simplifying everything. I am working in my sandbox and will be working awhile, but when I am done, I will get you to take a look at it again. It still won't have 'change' hung on the events you expected to find, and it will have a lot more sociology, but it will be irrefutably accurate and hopefully easy to follow and understand. I am trying to cooperate Mike, and thank you for your efforts, and hope that things are still good between us in spite of disagreement. Thank you again for showing up when I call. You're the best. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Things are still good! I'm glad you're taking this so well. I wouldn't want to lose the work you've done, though; I think you should plan on creating a new article about the historiography and move the great majority of what you've done into that. I'd be happy to take a look at a draft of the revised article when you're ready, with the usual caveat that I'm no expert. Can I suggest that I take a look at an early stage, perhaps not much more than outline? That might be best, in case the discussion leads to changes; I'd hate to see you waste work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

It's in my sandbox as we speak - or type - you are welcome to participate at any time, in any way. I am thinking of retitling it "sociological view of Christianization". I won't lose all the work I did - maybe half - but I am adding much more sociology - very plainly and simply explained I hope. Roman empire is a focus for many sociologists apparently. They couldn't do this work before computers, there was just too much data, but I now have a wealth of sources on this topic, and charts and graphs that are way cool, and if I can just figure out how to paraphrase it so Display name 99 can understand it, then I am golden.

There is nothing to take well, Mike, honestly. I am not wrong in what I said, my facts are correct. Christianization did not happen from the top down because of Constantine. But if I can't write this in a way that illuminates that for intelligent people like you, then the article is indeed a failure. I agree. Display name 99 said he didn't learn anything. Ouch. That has to be fixed. So I needed a whole new approach, and you offered a suggestion that provides a natural framework. I am using it and combining it with the sociological info that demonstrates the whole process. It's quite fascinating and quite apparent when you see what all these scholars have done. The new article is a discussion of what, but that is only to demonstrate how. That is still the central question, and it seems quite amazing to be writing this at a time when 200 years of scholarship has been turned on its head. We live in interesting times! You are always welcome, and I mean that, but maybe give me a little time to get it a little organized? Or not! Let's just leave it at, you are always welcome. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Let me know when you'd like me to take a look. My main suggestion would be to think in terms of summary style -- chronologically or sociologically, it's a gigantic topic, and it would be very easy to hit 20,000 words. An outline identifying the component articles in the overall tree might help focus. Then you could have multiple sandboxes, and work on different bits of the tree at once if you want to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It really is a gigantic topic, and I am trying to keep all of what you said in mind. Including both chronology and sociology is going to require extensive cutting, but that's okay, most things can be summarized in a sentence. It's the details that Display Name 99 said were essential that get in the way. I am trying to just pick one detail for each summary statement, but even that is already adding up! Going back and cutting and cutting!! This is not only the current view, it is without doubt the method and view of the future, so it's really important that wiki has this. I will persevere and try to learn all that I can from all of you more seasoned editors. Thank you for your patience! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Popular Publications: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Firestar464 (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I do have Twinkle installed and should probably figure out how to use it properly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thank you for your help on getting Total Recall to Featured Status, I appreciate your time! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

FAC for Kaze to Ki no Uta

Thanks again for your source review at my FAC for Kaze to Ki No Uta; I was very grateful for your input. The nomination is currently in the dreaded last slot at FAC – I don't know if it breaks some kind of FAC protocol for a source reviewer to also do a general review, but if you had the time and interest in doing so (and since your comments at my previous FAC for Stucky (fandom) helped eke that article over the finish line), any further comments you had regarding improvements that could be made to the article would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Morgan695 (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I might be able to look at it tomorrow (and there's no issue with doing a source review and a content review on a single article). It's probably OK, though; when something has exactly three reviews, the coordinators are likely to leave it for a week or three to see if anyone else will comment, but it's very unlikely to get archived if there are no negative comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

FAC source review

Hello! Last month you did a source review for my FAC of Arnold Bennett, and it was so helpful – saving me, among other things, from an embarrassing omission – that I wonder if you might be inclined to do another source review, this time of Georges Feydeau? Entirely understand if not, but I hope you will be able to look in. Tim riley talk 18:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I should be able to. I don't have time tonight, but will see if I can look in in the next couple of days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I am staggered by the patience and thoroughness of the best source reviewers like you and the late and still sorely missed Brian Boulton. I have done a few source spot checks over the years (I live down the road from the British Library, so have access to practically all printed books) but going through an article reference by reference and source by source as you do is something I admire more than I can say but would, on balance, rather die than attempt myself. We are lucky to have colleagues like you and BB who actually enjoy it! Long may you continue! Tim riley talk 20:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm flattered to be mentioned in the same breath as Brian. My newly semi-retired state has given me a burst of enthusiasm which may or may not last. And I still learn something new every time -- I'd never seen that web archive template before. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of Barkhale Camp

Congratulations, Mike Christie! The article you nominated, Barkhale Camp, 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, Buidhe (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of Combe Hill

Congratulations, Mike Christie! The article you nominated, Combe 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, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

May songs

Congratulations! - Thank you today for G-8 and His Battle Aces, "about an air-war pulp magazine set in World War I. Apparently the Germans used zombies, mummies, Martians, and giant bats to attack the allies in World War I, but somehow none of these events made it into the official history books, perhaps because the heroic G-8 stopped the German threats over and over again."! - DYK serious yesterday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

today performances in Ukraine - for Ukraine - for peace, at the bottom an imaginary set of eight DYK - and more May pics--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I like my talk today (actually mostly from 29 May - I took the title pic), enjoy the music, two related videos worth watching! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 50

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 50, March – April 2022

• New library partner - SPIE
• 1Lib1Ref May 2022 underway

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

Christianization of the Roman Empire and Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation

Well I have done all of this as if being pulled through a hedge ass backwards, but I think, I hope, I have finally produced something worthy of Wikipedia. The original article has been split, which turns out to have been the right thing to do. I went along kicking and screaming only to end up saying, "Oh! Look at that!" You were right - you deserve to hear that - and making CRE a parent article that contains a general overview of all the theories old and new was the right thing to do. It's still historiography, but that's all there is in this field. CRE as diffusion of innovation is a sub-article that primarily presents one view. I originally tried cramming too much into one article, and all it did was make a mess of all of it. I see that now.

I think you deserve an explanation for my recent erratic behavior. I want you to know I am not always this difficult. My mother died in March, and my sister stole part of the inheritance - 160,000$ - not a fortune, but it really hurt that she would do that, so that, piled on top of grief, has made for a very difficult aftermath for me. I think I am maintaining balance and calm - and then I find I am not. It is proving to be a difficult year of "firsts" - first birthday without either my mother or my sister, etc. - and it's all made me a little thin skinned. It's a little like walking around with your skin turned inside out and every nerve exposed. The air moving hurts. So I'm a little crazy this year, and I apologize, and hope you won't hold it against me. Anyway, this isn't a play for sympathy, I just thought you should know, so you wouldn't be averse to ever hearing from me again. At least the articles are done now. I hope. Please gods of Wikipedia, let it be so. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Jen, I'm so sorry to hear about your mother, and about the way your sister treated you, but I'm delighted to hear that the division of the article has worked out welll. I'm travelling for a few weeks so won't be on Wikipedia much but will try to find time to read through both the articles. What are you planning on working on next? Knowing you it's probably something ambitious like Christianity! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

You are a kind hearted person and I am glad to know you. Do not for a minute waste any precious downtime on me, you do whatever best pleases you and yours and enjoy yourself. Thank you for understanding. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I know you are occupied and don't need to be paying attention to trivial stuff like this, but I just had to say thank you again. I love the result of putting a chronology in CRE as diffusion. It has made all the difference. It keeps order, of course, but it also allows the unfolding of what happened to be so much clearer and so very apparent. Plus it continually reminds the reader of what was going on in other places as well. Plus it has leant a structure and focus that simply wasn't there before. It's quite brilliant of you - and brilliant of me to have listened to you! This is a behemoth of an article, but it is so awesome, really, and that is due to you and your wonderful patience and insight. I am so tickled with the result I can hardly stand it. I do hope you read it just so you can see for yourself. I have asked for a peer review, but so far no response. Maybe in time. Eventually it should be GA. It's a really good article Mike. Thank you thank you thank you. And thank you some more and again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I am so pleased! I’m traveling for a while yet but hope to be able to look at it later this month. Best of luck with the peer review and GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Barkhale Camp scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Barkhale Camp article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 26, 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/July 26, 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.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

and Marvel Tales and Unusual Stories on July 30, 2022 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

If you have time to do a source review...

...I have It's That Man Again up for FAC, and your notably thorough source review of my last FAC (Georges Feydeau) leads me to seek another from you, if you have time and inclination. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 14:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd be glad to, but it won't be soon -- I'm recovering from COVID at the moment and I have an off-wiki project that will keep me busy for a while after that. When I get a chance to edit regularly again I will probably take a look at the source review requests backlog, but I don't know when that will be. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Best wishes for a swift and complete recovery! More important things to worry about than source reviewing! Take care. Tim riley talk 18:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Tim, sorry to see elsewhere that your right hand is in plaster; no need to reply to this ping and waste your now limited typing time. Just wanted to say that having more or less cleared the source review backlog I was hoping to get to the source review for you this weekend, but I see someone has already stepped in. Feel free to ask me again for any future FACs. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Barkhale Camp

Hi Mike! I saw that Barkhale Camp was the TFA! As soon as I saw the name and description, I had a feeling it might have been one of your articles. I just wanted to say congrats!--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 13:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I seem to be on a run of archaeological sites at the moment; I have another in the works, so if you see another Neolithic site on the front page in the next few months that'll probably be me too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the article, introduced: "about another causewayed enclosure in Sussex. There are about half-a-dozen of these sites in Sussex, and I'd like to get all of them featured; this is the fourth."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

TFA

July songs

Thank you today for Marvel Tales and Unusual Stories, "about a pair of magazines published by a dedicated science fiction fan in the 1930s. William Crawford's ambitions outran his financial resources, but his two semi-professional magazines were a pioneering effort to expand the new science fiction genre beyond the limits set by pulp magazine publishing standards." Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Rachel Dyer FAC

Thank you for making some copy edits to Rachel Dyer. The article currently has this nomination open for FAC. Given that you've recently given the article a look, I'd like to invite you to also comment on the nomination. That nomination probably needs comments from at least one more reviewer to keep it from being archived for inactivity. Would you be willing to give it a look? Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I would be glad to review it. At the moment I have houses guests but they leave tomorrow; if I don't find time today I should be able to tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 51

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 51, May – June 2022

• New library partners
  • SAGE Journals
  • Elsevier ScienceDirect
  • University of Chicago Press
  • Information Processing Society of Japan
• Feedback requested on this newsletter
• 1Lib1Ref May 2022

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)