This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fantastic Story Quarterly you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn ( talk) 17:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Precious again, your Cosmic Stories and Stirring Science Stories!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wonder Story Annual you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn ( talk) 12:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The article Fantastic Story Quarterly you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fantastic Story Quarterly for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn ( talk) 14:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The article Wonder Story Annual you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Wonder Story Annual for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn ( talk) 18:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, in this edit you reference that the magazine was at times printed monthly and at other times printed once every two months (which is what I interpret bimonthly to mean--maybe it is once every two weeks).
As an FYI, Wikidata can represent this information using the qualifiers "start date" and "end date" on the hypothetical claims regarding the printing frequency (not currently present in its item at Unknown (Q2629880)). -- Izno ( talk) 18:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
|isbn=|genre=
and etc. However, opt-in isn't much better, or is in fact worse, because you end up seeing statements like |title=FETCH_WIKIDATA|genre=FETCH_WIKIDATA
and etc. RexxS at the
Template:infobox book discussion and in the RFC is suggesting a whitelist/blacklist approach, which is marginally better on this point. I think the larger problem is that people aren't willing to fix the Wikidata instead of saying "I want control here"--from what I've observed, the majority of the problems with the current implementation in Infobox book go away if someone goes and pokes at the item representing the book on Wikidata, because Wikidata does have standards and expectations regarding how e.g. a book item should look. Wikidata is flexible enough to make it work, and it's thus mostly just "Not from around here"-ism (straying into
WP:OWNy territory)... an issue that en.WP had to sort through when Commons was introduced as well... --
Izno (
talk) 12:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
( ←) Well, right now, the module only allows for the "opt-out" style. The way you would opt in currently is to use the module directly in the article page while leaving the particular infobox field "unconverted". Regardless of infobox conversion, if the editor chooses to set the Wikidata watchlist preference (does not work with enhanced RC/WL), then they will see the changes from Wikidata in their watchlist.
Sure, there is some "I'm not familiar this", but as you pointed out on the RFC, everyone has that at some point, and a lot of the opposition seems to be based on "I'm not willing to learn a new thing". There's a ticket open on Phabricator for "how to edit Wikidata from the client wiki", but that's tagged [epic] and probably won't be done for a while. There might be a script/gadget or two from some enterprising javascript developer lying around currently, but I wouldn't know where to look for that.
Yup, that's possible. There should probably be a blacklist of disallowed references, since a lot of the references in Wikidata are "imported from English Wikipedia" and similar. Better still would be to add the reference in Wikidata when you go to modify the infobox (adding references is painful right now, but again, another point of improvement that I believe is on the tech team's radar), such that you don't need to "worry". The other problem is that there are many properties which ostensibly don't need a citation (see d:Help:Sources#When to source a statement), and ironically one of the problem properties that started the RFC (ISBN) is one of them--you shouldn't need to cite an ISBN, because that ISBN identifies a single issue (besides different texts with duplicate ISBNs, but that's not our fault nor a particular problem), and the only useful citation in that case is the item itself (or having the item to hand...).
This is a future use case of Wikidata; I say "future" because while I think the infrastructure is there to support that use, we're still working on issues like the one in the RFC.
I'm not particularly against that idea, though from my perspective I would agree that it might end up adding 5 million talk page comments--more, if an infobox is converted over many edits over some substantial period of time.... :) -- Izno ( talk) 13:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mike, I've been through the article now and hopefully sourced everything properly. I've also chopped everything out that wasn't completely relevant. The only bit I'm unconvinced by is the sourcing in the last paragraph but to be honest that could be removed from the article anyway, I just thought it would be good to keep as the fanbase is a big part of the band. Thanks, Laura Jamieson (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
by
The Interior,
Ocaasi,
UY Scuti,
Sadads, and
Nikkimaria
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mike, I have been looking at the Nature letter on Bruniquel Cave, which Doug Weller kindly sent me, on the amazing stalagmite structures built by the Neanderthals 175,000 years ago. The Nature letter says that the first study of the cave in the early 1990s produced a C14 date on burnt bone of >47,600 years ago. As the current maximum for C14 dating is 50,000 years, am I correct in thinking that a date of over 47,600 years at that date probably just means that no C14 was found in the sample? They have now dated the structures by uranium series dating as between 175.2±0.8 ka and 177.1±0.8 ka, with 2σ uncertainties. This is still quite low at 95.4% probability, but better than C14, which I think you said is usually given to 1σ. Presumably this is because uranium series dating is more reliable than radiocarbon dating?
I can send you the Nature letter if you are interested. Dudley Miles ( talk) 23:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
This is a very nice post, Mike. I thought I'd stop by and tell you, rather than pushing the "thank" button. What you've written is clear, easy to follow, and I think probably the solution we're looking for. Glad to know some of us still can grapple with the tough issues! Btw - I've been binge reading recently and zoomed through a sci-fi series, very space opera-ish, and for some reason thought of you. Victoria ( tk) 17:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mike Christie, I was wondering whether you would possibly have time and interest to give feedback here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Title TK/archive2. Any comments would be much appreciated. Thank you. Moisejp ( talk) 07:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
She's more fantasy than sf, but I'm shocked that Mary Brown of The Unlikely Ones and Playing the Jack doesn't have an article... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi again, thanks for the link to your interesting sign post article. Our discussion inspired me to begin developing a Porposal for Peer Review Reform, and your comments about it will be very welcome. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Mike, please take a look here at a couple of mentor suggestions, one more formal than the other. Tinker with them as you like; I suggest you leave your comments on that page. On reflection I find myself veering towards the less formal, but I'm persuadable. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Mentoring proposal: Mike, it looks to me as though there is a fair degree of support for mentoring of first-time FAC nominators. I have revised my draft proposal to take account of some of the concerns raised in the discussion. My revised draft is back
here – what do you think (comment there)?
Brianboulton (
talk) 20:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Mike, I was wondering if you have an opinion on this thread (be sure to read all the way to the end, tho it's short). on Maunus' talk page? Tks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for all of your great points in your peer review of the article! I apologize for not watching the archive page closely enough and not realizing all the work you put in until now. I will put some effort in over the next few weeks to implement as many of your suggestions as I can. Thanks again, John. -- Arg342 ( talk) 09:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I have written to the editors who expressed some support for the mentoring idea in the talkpage discussions, asking them to add their names to the mentors list. I've also written separately to a few editors with whom I've worked from time to time, all active FAC participants, asking them to sign up, too. The idea is to get a dozen or so names on the list to kick-start the scheme; at that point I think we should go live. I will then contact other five-plus editors and invite them to join. Hopefully the list will expand rapidly from that point. Brianboulton ( talk) 12:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I have noticed that you are a very active member of the FAC process, and have done a lot of work with television-related articles. I would really appreciate any comments or feedback on my FAC ( " Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?"). I would greatly appreciate a fresh pair of eyes with this article as I have put a lot of work into it and want to make it the best that it can be (regardless of whether or not it is promoted). I understand that you are busy, so it is completely okay if you are unable or would not like to do this.
The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?/archive1. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Not wanting to add to the thread which an arb felt was in the wrong position: you said "It's my understanding that this problem is much rarer". I don't know. I could tell you five easily, and I'm not searching for them, they simply come by my watchlist. Still waiting for one example of the other kind ;) - Infoboxvar: what is the "preferred style" if an editor was just too lazy to create an infobox? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I noticed the removal of The Stone Carvers from the Vimy Memorial article, and am leaving a note here as I am familiar with the topic: with the explosion of interest in the First World War in recent years, there has been third-party commentary on practically every cultural aspect, including novels such as that. Usually in relatively obscure academic works (most of which are published at eye-watering prices). But the sources are there. In this case, the source is still in article, somewhat ironically. Search the article for "Urquhart" and you will see that one of the sources is:
"Bolling, Gordon (2003). "Acts of (Re-)Construction: Traces of Germany in Jane Urquhart's Novel the Stone Carvers". In Antor, Heinz; Brown, Sylvia; Considine, John; Stierstorfer, Klaus. Refractions of Germany in Canadian Literature and Culture. Berlin: de Gruyter. pp. 295–318. ISBN 978-3-11-017666-7."
As I said, one of those obscure 'culture/memory/literature/commemoration' works. But it is there. Also: The Great War in Post-Memory Literature and Film. And Catching the Torch: Contemporary Canadian Literary Responses to World War I. Also Resurgences of the extra-textual and metatextual in Jane Urquhart's 'The stone carvers'. It has been a long time since I had to know what extra-textual and metatextual meant, but the material is out there (the whole 'nationhood forged in WWI' theme is very strong in the histories of the Dominions as they were then and has spawned a whole industry writing about it). To be fair, most of this belongs elsewhere (such as in the article on the novel itself), but mention of this novel has been in the article since 2006. Out of interest, of the works in Category:World War I novels, which would you consider to be 'notable' enough to warrant mention when this kind of question comes up? I had a look, and I'd never heard of The Good Soldier Švejk for instance, though I had heard of a number of the other famous ones. Fascinating. Carcharoth ( talk) 19:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mike Christie, I hope everything is fine. I was wondering if you have the time.. could you take up(look at/review) the "Peer review" for Battle of the Bastards(Season 6, Episode 9 of Game of Thrones ("Spoiler alert if you have not seen the series")). I am trying to get this to a "Featured Artice".. (It has already been passed for "Good Article") and I need some one to review and tell me what to fix/do to make that happen.( Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of the Bastards/archive1) AffeL ( talk) 20:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Owain Knight has moved Anglo-Saxon military organization to Anglo-Saxon Army. This raises a number of issues. 1. It was done without discussion, although a potentially controversial move should have been suggested first on the Talk page. 2. I do not agree with the move. There obviously were Anglo-Saxon armies, but not a single army, and certainly not an Anglo-Saxon Army with a capital "A". 3. There is a separate article on Anglo-Saxon warfare, and I do not see that a separate article is needed on military organisation or army. I would suggest a merger but I do not want to divert from the projects I am working on to sort out a merger, and I do not suppose that anyone else would take it on. As the Anglo-Saxon Army article is unreferenced I think the best thing to do it to delete it - which has been proposed in the past according to a note on the Talk page. Any views? Dudley Miles ( talk) 22:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll write this before I read your essay; I'm very easily swayed! My issue is generally with how opinions, reviews and "receptions" are written. I think this is an issue in almost any article from biographies to film to song where there are no "over-arching" sources such as a biography. If there is such a source, for example saying that "X had good reviews" or "Everyone thought that Y was amazing" that is fine, but a lot of articles do not have this, such as our Emma Stone article and possibly another few I've read recently. In this case, the writers have to find their own "reviews" and that is the problem. Who decides what is representative? Who decides which sources to use? Who decides where to look? To read a lot of reviews and summarise them as "good" or "bad" is OR (unless there is something like Rotten Tomatoes that summarises reviews) and there is a danger that the writers either pick and choose reviews (however subconsciously) or quote so many to make them meaningless or miss out something important. Sometimes there might be one recognised "Gold Standard" review (for example, in my sphere of cricketers that would be Wisden or Cricinfo) but often there isn't. I'm really not sure what the solution is, or if one is needed. Not too sure if I'm making sense, it's been a long day! Sarastro1 ( talk) 21:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for dropping by at the Stone FAC. I have recently filed Swift's article at PR for further scrutiny. If you have time and interest, I'd love to see any comments you have. No hurry and compunction at all. Cheers - FrB.TG ( talk) 10:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank You | |
Thanks for leaving a comment/review on my FAC. The article passed and I just wanted to stop by and say thanks. – jona ✉ 19:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC) |
Ten signed up so far and that's before I've made my general trawl for volunteers which I will do in a couple of days. I'm ready to go live with the proposal when we have, say, a dozen names on the list – what do you say? Brianboulton ( talk) 08:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
Ocaasi,
Samwalton9,
UY Scuti, and
Sadads
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Mike Christie, thank you for taking the time to set up these statistics. Not a big deal, but I did 2 source and 1 "ordinary" reviews in August (not 1:2). As a typical German I double-checked these numbers of course ;). Best regards. GermanJoe ( talk) 17:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Super Science Stories | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 233 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, as we discussed on the FAC, I've found what I think is the most appropriate map to use in the bluebuck article. This map: [1] From this paper: [2] It shows fossil localities, and the written locations of key areas mentioned in the text... FunkMonk ( talk) 20:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
An editor is insisting that in Edward the Elder, "Eadweard cyning" means "Edward of God". I have pointed out at Talk:Edward the Elder#Cyning that cyning means king, and I have reverted twice, but he has each time reverted back. Can you take a look? Dudley Miles ( talk) 16:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
The article GikII has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 08:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello Mike Christie and Jo-Jo Eumerus, unfortunately looking for renewals can be quite time-consuming. On files, where an experienced uploader like AdamBMorgan explicitly mentioned a sufficient search for renewals (as in File:Weird Tales March 1923.jpg), I would usually simply AGF and probably spotcheck just 1 image. Other files with a "not renewed" claim but no apparent previous search should be checked more thoroughly here:
Doing such a check for File:WeirdTalesv30n4pg419 Shunned House.png shows: no renewals for the whole magazine, and a few renewals for some contributions (only 4-5). But no entries that match the file's specific image information (author, image title, etc.) - so this file should be OK. I have added a note to the image's license information for clarity. (see edit history of file) ==> A similar check should be done for a few more images, especially for images from inexperienced uploaders, or when a search for renewals is not explicitly mentioned. Hope that helps a bit, please ping me anytime if you need further information. GermanJoe ( talk) 04:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I apologize for the inconvenience again. Thank you again for your help with previous FAC. I would really appreciate any comments or feedback for my current FAC ( Chad Harris-Crane). The FAC currently has a very users who have commented, and an image review. I would greatly appreciate a fresh pair of eyes with this article, as I want to improve as a contributor on here as I am trying to get some of my GAs promoted to featured articles. I understand that you are busy, so it is completely okay if you are unable or would not like to do this.
The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chad Harris-Crane/archive1. Aoba47 ( talk) 23:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ATS. Ike Altgens is a Featured article candidate. I hope you have a few moments to check this article against the criteria so I may address any concerns and see this nomination through. My thanks in advance. — ATS 🖖 talk 21:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mike, if you have some time I'd value your input here -- quite a lot of commentary but would be good to hear from someone of your broad FA experience. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 13:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
by
Nikkimaria,
Sadads and
UY Scuti
19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
If you don't think there was politicized canvassing in the previous discussion of that stuff, a) look how many times that discussion was flagged for canvassing by different people (and note that all the canvassing was from one direction); and b) go read WT:FAC during the same several weeks, where you'll see ARBCOM-actionable hate-spewing against all MoS editors, personal attacks against specific ones, blatant lies and character assassination about anyone disagreeing with FAC canon, false equivalence and scapegoating of MoS when people said they were leaving WP over the tiresomeness of infobox debates (infoboxes are not an MoS issue at all – MoS is completely neutral on them), and multiple proposals for an "anti-MoS" all for FA and its clique. That's the very definition of politicization. If you go to FAC and try to drum up unnatural attention to another MoS discussion, it's just going to start all over again. Let people who actually care about this, which is probably 5 or 10% of the FAC regulars, come into the discussion on their own, which they inevitably will (and see that their concerns are actually being directly addressed, civilly), instead of being whipped into another anti-MoS crusade as a voting bloc on the basis of false agit-prop. You may have noticed I've been almost entirely absent from WP for weeks on end. It's specifically to get away from the hate-spewing invective of the instigators in that specific crowd. If this were any topical dispute of any kind at all (Israel vs. Palestine, whatever), numerous of those people would be subjected to topic bans, but they get away with it because virtually no admins will enforce discretionary sanctions or anything else if it's an attack on MoS/AT regulars. That, too, is entirely political. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Mike Christie. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mike. An IP deleted "His name means "protector of wealth"." I reverted as I thought it is relevant, and the IP deleted again at [7]. Can you see what you think please. Dudley Miles ( talk) 21:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to take you up on your offer of guidance re selecting projects. Owing to my background and experience, I feel that I can most help out in the articles about history, particularly antiquity. At this time, I'm overhauling the Romulus and Remus article. It needs it! Anyway, thanks for everything. InformationvsInjustice ( talk) 14:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Looks great. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Precious again, your Fantastic Adventures, where "artistic highlights include a galloping T. Rex and a phallic submarine", and your willingness to serve as TFA coordinator!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The Guidance Barnstar | ||
For going the extra mile to help improve my contributions and participation in the community Informata ob Iniquitatum ( talk) 05:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas | |
Hoping you stay warm and have lots of good times and good food this holiday season! White Arabian Filly Neigh |
Hello again! I apologize for always asking for your help with my nominations at FAC. I would really appreciate any comments or feedback on my current FAC ( Love, Inc.). I would greatly appreciate a fresh pair of eyes with this nomination as I have put a lot of work into expanding this article on this relatively obscure television show and want to make it the best that it can be (regardless of whether or not it is promoted) and improve my skills as a user on here as well. I understand that you are busy, so it is completely okay if you are unable or would not like to do this. Just for your knowledge, the FAC currently has three "support" votes and a source and image review.
The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Love, Inc. (TV series)/archive1. Thank you either way, and I hope you are having a wonderful end of 2016 so far (this has been a crazy year). Aoba47 ( talk) 16:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Happy Saturnalia | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
Or maybe a "whimper" button... for this. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, copying in the lead before copying in the blurbs wasn't a mistake ... in fact, in cases where the lead hasn't been copied in, I usually copy it in myself and then self-revert. Some people make great edits at TFAR to the blurbs; some, not so much. So I like to work from the lead as well as the TFAR blurb. Also, it's useful being able to get a diff between the TFA text and the article lead by hitting one button. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if I could ask you to cast your eye over the prose of Viking metal (FAC here)? I'd just like someone to take another look at it. No problem if you can't manage it. Thanks. Sarastro1 ( talk) 00:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mike I was thrilled to see this go to TFA (especially because Maria was a friend) but in case you ever wondered, this is the reason we dislike TFA. In my view Maria went through one of the worst experiences of any woman in terms of bullying, etc, in 2012 when Pilgrim at Tinker Creek ran for TFA. Discussion is here in case you've never seen it. I'm not complaining, just pointing out, in case you were unaware, why some of us run for the hills on TFA day and why a number of us are no longer around or only around sporadically. Victoriaearle ( tk) 02:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
We have a few supports on Burning Rangers (FAC here) but I'd like another look at the prose as no one seems to actually have reviewed that aspect fully. So... if you are at a loose end...! Sarastro1 ( talk) 22:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello again! I apologize for always asking for your help with my nominations at FAC. I would really appreciate any comments or feedback on my current FAC for the Russell family (Passions). I would greatly appreciate a fresh pair of eyes with this nomination as I have put a lot of work into expanding this article on this soap opera and want to make it the best that it can be (regardless of whether or not it is promoted) and improve my skills as a user on here as well.
I understand that you are busy, so it is completely okay if you are unable or would not like to do this. Just for your knowledge, the FAC currently has three "support" votes and a source and image review. I was recently advised to improve the prose and you helped me a great deal with the FAC for Chad Harris-Crane so I would greatly appreciate your help here again.
The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russell family (Passions)/archive1. Thank you either way, and I hope you are having a wonderful start of your new year. Aoba47 ( talk) 05:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by
Nikkimaria (
talk ·
contribs),
Ocaasi (
talk ·
contribs),
UY Scuti (
talk ·
contribs),
Samwalton9 (
talk ·
contribs)
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi there! Could you do a copy-edit on the article above, as well? I think it has many grammar issues (especially tense), and it would help with its GAR. Best, Cartoon network freak ( talk) 15:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, thank you again for your review at my FAC. While revising the article for Russell family (Passions), I noticed that all of the information from the two articles Whitney Russell and T. C. Russell can already be found on the main page related to the fictional family. Even though both articles have been passed as good articles, I think that they can be safely redirected to the Russell family (Passions) article. I was wondering if I could get your opinion about this: if the articles should be redirected and if so, how would I go about the process of doing so? I apologize for any inconvenience. I hope you are having a wonderful day. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nike-X/archive1 - well, I remain a bit concerned about most of the remaining points. I can't say I'm getting warm and fuzzies from the nominator either. The discussion on the source here where I asked "Okay.... then what is the source for the first part of the sentence? If the reference at the end of the two sentences doesn't cover both sentences - does this sort of unsourced sentence followed by a sourced sentence happen elsewhere in the article?" and got a reply of "a) the one before and after it, b) no idea.". Or a further question "Did you access the actual book or just through google snippets/page preview?" and got the reply "I don't recall. " I also remain concerned about the reliance on the source from Bell Labs. Since the whole article appears to imply that Bell Labs was the main contractor, I'm not sure it's the best independent source. But the replies on the other issues above (especially the one about whether the sentence is covered by the source or not) gives me great pause. I just don't have the time to dig into the situation enough to do a full dig into it and get all the sources and see if every sentence matches up to the sources given. I just can't deal with that much flak. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Mike. May I ask you for a favor? I was wondering if you had the time to copyedit Hrithik Roshan. I will appreciate your help (no problem if you cannot). Thank you either way. – FrB.TG ( talk) 14:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Mike. I have nominated Æthelflæd at FAC. Any comments gratefully received. Dudley Miles ( talk) 17:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Btw, I pinged David because he's asked to be pinged for image issues. If you'd like me to ping you as well whenever there's a comment about the image during your month, I'll be happy to. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I thought your first month went really well. - Dank ( push to talk) 00:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Do you hate the Anglo-Saxons? I can't see any other explanation for claiming everything before 600 AD was fake. People never went to such great lengths to make things up, and obvious made-up things (Geoffrey of Monmouth's pre-Cassivelaunus list, Port founding Portsmouth) are obvious. Is it because they were pagans? We have literally nothing other than the textual sources, given the archeological evidence is historically worthless and excavations are rare. To say Ælle wasn't real is ridiculous. There is literally no alternative. If you say he didn't exist then you're damning an interesting area of history to be trampled on and forgotten. The Britons have already had this happen to them (thousands of books about how attested people from the Migration Period didn't exist). ÞunoresWrǣþþe ( talk) 00:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Marvel Science Stories article has been scheduled as today's featured article for February 13, 2017. 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/February 13, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what your workload is like, but I'd appreciate someone taking a look at Nyuserre Ini ( FAC here). It's looking OK on content based on the review, but the prose looks like it needs a little work. No worries if not. Sarastro1 ( talk) 12:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I've nominated the article about the episode Eve Russell for Featured Article consideration. I would really appreciate any comments or feedback on this nomination. I understand that you are busy so it is completely okay if you are unable to do this. I apologize for any inconvenience.
The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eve Russell/archive1. Thank you for your time. Aoba47 ( talk) 04:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello Mike, I don't believe we have really communicated here on Wikipedia before, so nice to meet you ;). Anyway, I see you've been around the block before when it comes to FAC, but you do have a lot on your plate. I'm here because there have been some concerns regarding my open FAC for Make Me Like You and I was wondering if you could assist me, if you're not busy of course. If you are, do you know of anyone else who could possibly help me out? Thank you very much, Carbrera ( talk) 22:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC).
Thanks for the intervention. I could see what was going on, but cant really do anything at work - and it was a long, long, late night week! Ceoil ( talk) 10:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I apologize for the intrusion again. I just have a quick question about the formatting for a few of my references as I keep receiving error messages. I am currently working on an article about an EP in one of my sandboxes ( here), and I keep getting error messages for the following references: 10, 11, and 12. I was wondering if you could help me figure out what I am doing wrong, as I am not sure why the error messages keep popping up and I would like to correct this before doing further work on the rest of my draft. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 ( talk) 03:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Izno: Thank you for your response and I apologize for the trouble. I will be more careful and aware about this in the future. I am not sure why I did not just click on the help links lol. Hope you both have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I just promoted this and noticed that the title of the article isn't italicised like all the other magazine articles (although it is in the main body). Glitch, or deliberate? (Not that the world will end in any case; maybe I'm being thick) Sarastro1 ( talk) 23:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Mike, I'm taking a few days off because of a family emergency. Thought I'd let you know, because I won't be able to reply to your post until I'm back again (but I have seen it). Best, Victoriaearle ( tk) 20:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Mike. An editor has created a set of articles about supposed ancestors of Cerdic of Wessex who are described as Kings of the Anglo-Saxons. These are based on the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which of course does not give them any such title, and is also OR. I think the articles should be deleted as not notable, but is there a way of flagging them without a load of hassle? Maybe the editor should be warned? Dudley Miles ( talk) 12:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I don't know if you came across Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Pūnohu White/archive1. It was closed today because of no traffic and only 1 review after a month. The quality of the article is FAC material in my opinion. I did not ask anybody (except two users) in the initial run to review it since I was trusting that it will receive reviews. Now I am asking a couple of people here and there to see if there is enough interest to renominate it again as recommended by the closing admin. I will only go ahead and renominate it once I find a few people who wants to give it a review. Please let me know if you are interested. Thanks either way.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 01:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Mike, you may be interested in having a look at Boing Boing's Sci-Fi Sundays It features an issue of a SF magazine each Sunday, and discusses the cover and inside art work. — Bruce1ee talk 06:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't discuss this earlier, but now I know what to say. LBR did claim Andha Naal to be the first songless film in all of India (supported by AVM Saravanan), but I think that's erroneous as the honour actually goes to Naujawan (1937). Rather than remove the claim, could we rework the footnote to make it similar to that in Yesterday? Vensatry, what do you say? Kailash29792 (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello!.
I am translating History of US science fiction and fantasy magazines to 1950 and others of your great articles about magazines for the Wikipedia in Spanish language.
Davin (1999) is cited several times in the History article, but I can't find that author in the Sources section. Davin, Pioneers is cited once too.
Is that source missing?
I hope not to bother you or waste your time. Thank you in advance for your response. Regards, -- Furado ( talk) 08:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I've nominated the article about the fictional character Simone Russell for Featured Article consideration. The FAC has received some commentary and a source and image review, but the discussion has stalled over the last week. I would greatly appreciate any comments or feedback on this nomination if possible. I would really appreciate any comments or feedback on this nomination. I understand that you are busy so it is completely okay if you are unable to do this. I apologize for any inconvenience. The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Simone Russell/archive1. Thank you for your time. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fantastic Story Quarterly you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn ( talk) 17:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Precious again, your Cosmic Stories and Stirring Science Stories!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wonder Story Annual you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn ( talk) 12:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The article Fantastic Story Quarterly you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fantastic Story Quarterly for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn ( talk) 14:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The article Wonder Story Annual you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Wonder Story Annual for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn ( talk) 18:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, in this edit you reference that the magazine was at times printed monthly and at other times printed once every two months (which is what I interpret bimonthly to mean--maybe it is once every two weeks).
As an FYI, Wikidata can represent this information using the qualifiers "start date" and "end date" on the hypothetical claims regarding the printing frequency (not currently present in its item at Unknown (Q2629880)). -- Izno ( talk) 18:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
|isbn=|genre=
and etc. However, opt-in isn't much better, or is in fact worse, because you end up seeing statements like |title=FETCH_WIKIDATA|genre=FETCH_WIKIDATA
and etc. RexxS at the
Template:infobox book discussion and in the RFC is suggesting a whitelist/blacklist approach, which is marginally better on this point. I think the larger problem is that people aren't willing to fix the Wikidata instead of saying "I want control here"--from what I've observed, the majority of the problems with the current implementation in Infobox book go away if someone goes and pokes at the item representing the book on Wikidata, because Wikidata does have standards and expectations regarding how e.g. a book item should look. Wikidata is flexible enough to make it work, and it's thus mostly just "Not from around here"-ism (straying into
WP:OWNy territory)... an issue that en.WP had to sort through when Commons was introduced as well... --
Izno (
talk) 12:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
( ←) Well, right now, the module only allows for the "opt-out" style. The way you would opt in currently is to use the module directly in the article page while leaving the particular infobox field "unconverted". Regardless of infobox conversion, if the editor chooses to set the Wikidata watchlist preference (does not work with enhanced RC/WL), then they will see the changes from Wikidata in their watchlist.
Sure, there is some "I'm not familiar this", but as you pointed out on the RFC, everyone has that at some point, and a lot of the opposition seems to be based on "I'm not willing to learn a new thing". There's a ticket open on Phabricator for "how to edit Wikidata from the client wiki", but that's tagged [epic] and probably won't be done for a while. There might be a script/gadget or two from some enterprising javascript developer lying around currently, but I wouldn't know where to look for that.
Yup, that's possible. There should probably be a blacklist of disallowed references, since a lot of the references in Wikidata are "imported from English Wikipedia" and similar. Better still would be to add the reference in Wikidata when you go to modify the infobox (adding references is painful right now, but again, another point of improvement that I believe is on the tech team's radar), such that you don't need to "worry". The other problem is that there are many properties which ostensibly don't need a citation (see d:Help:Sources#When to source a statement), and ironically one of the problem properties that started the RFC (ISBN) is one of them--you shouldn't need to cite an ISBN, because that ISBN identifies a single issue (besides different texts with duplicate ISBNs, but that's not our fault nor a particular problem), and the only useful citation in that case is the item itself (or having the item to hand...).
This is a future use case of Wikidata; I say "future" because while I think the infrastructure is there to support that use, we're still working on issues like the one in the RFC.
I'm not particularly against that idea, though from my perspective I would agree that it might end up adding 5 million talk page comments--more, if an infobox is converted over many edits over some substantial period of time.... :) -- Izno ( talk) 13:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mike, I've been through the article now and hopefully sourced everything properly. I've also chopped everything out that wasn't completely relevant. The only bit I'm unconvinced by is the sourcing in the last paragraph but to be honest that could be removed from the article anyway, I just thought it would be good to keep as the fanbase is a big part of the band. Thanks, Laura Jamieson (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
by
The Interior,
Ocaasi,
UY Scuti,
Sadads, and
Nikkimaria
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mike, I have been looking at the Nature letter on Bruniquel Cave, which Doug Weller kindly sent me, on the amazing stalagmite structures built by the Neanderthals 175,000 years ago. The Nature letter says that the first study of the cave in the early 1990s produced a C14 date on burnt bone of >47,600 years ago. As the current maximum for C14 dating is 50,000 years, am I correct in thinking that a date of over 47,600 years at that date probably just means that no C14 was found in the sample? They have now dated the structures by uranium series dating as between 175.2±0.8 ka and 177.1±0.8 ka, with 2σ uncertainties. This is still quite low at 95.4% probability, but better than C14, which I think you said is usually given to 1σ. Presumably this is because uranium series dating is more reliable than radiocarbon dating?
I can send you the Nature letter if you are interested. Dudley Miles ( talk) 23:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
This is a very nice post, Mike. I thought I'd stop by and tell you, rather than pushing the "thank" button. What you've written is clear, easy to follow, and I think probably the solution we're looking for. Glad to know some of us still can grapple with the tough issues! Btw - I've been binge reading recently and zoomed through a sci-fi series, very space opera-ish, and for some reason thought of you. Victoria ( tk) 17:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mike Christie, I was wondering whether you would possibly have time and interest to give feedback here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Title TK/archive2. Any comments would be much appreciated. Thank you. Moisejp ( talk) 07:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
She's more fantasy than sf, but I'm shocked that Mary Brown of The Unlikely Ones and Playing the Jack doesn't have an article... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi again, thanks for the link to your interesting sign post article. Our discussion inspired me to begin developing a Porposal for Peer Review Reform, and your comments about it will be very welcome. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Mike, please take a look here at a couple of mentor suggestions, one more formal than the other. Tinker with them as you like; I suggest you leave your comments on that page. On reflection I find myself veering towards the less formal, but I'm persuadable. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Mentoring proposal: Mike, it looks to me as though there is a fair degree of support for mentoring of first-time FAC nominators. I have revised my draft proposal to take account of some of the concerns raised in the discussion. My revised draft is back
here – what do you think (comment there)?
Brianboulton (
talk) 20:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Mike, I was wondering if you have an opinion on this thread (be sure to read all the way to the end, tho it's short). on Maunus' talk page? Tks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for all of your great points in your peer review of the article! I apologize for not watching the archive page closely enough and not realizing all the work you put in until now. I will put some effort in over the next few weeks to implement as many of your suggestions as I can. Thanks again, John. -- Arg342 ( talk) 09:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I have written to the editors who expressed some support for the mentoring idea in the talkpage discussions, asking them to add their names to the mentors list. I've also written separately to a few editors with whom I've worked from time to time, all active FAC participants, asking them to sign up, too. The idea is to get a dozen or so names on the list to kick-start the scheme; at that point I think we should go live. I will then contact other five-plus editors and invite them to join. Hopefully the list will expand rapidly from that point. Brianboulton ( talk) 12:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I have noticed that you are a very active member of the FAC process, and have done a lot of work with television-related articles. I would really appreciate any comments or feedback on my FAC ( " Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?"). I would greatly appreciate a fresh pair of eyes with this article as I have put a lot of work into it and want to make it the best that it can be (regardless of whether or not it is promoted). I understand that you are busy, so it is completely okay if you are unable or would not like to do this.
The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?/archive1. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Not wanting to add to the thread which an arb felt was in the wrong position: you said "It's my understanding that this problem is much rarer". I don't know. I could tell you five easily, and I'm not searching for them, they simply come by my watchlist. Still waiting for one example of the other kind ;) - Infoboxvar: what is the "preferred style" if an editor was just too lazy to create an infobox? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I noticed the removal of The Stone Carvers from the Vimy Memorial article, and am leaving a note here as I am familiar with the topic: with the explosion of interest in the First World War in recent years, there has been third-party commentary on practically every cultural aspect, including novels such as that. Usually in relatively obscure academic works (most of which are published at eye-watering prices). But the sources are there. In this case, the source is still in article, somewhat ironically. Search the article for "Urquhart" and you will see that one of the sources is:
"Bolling, Gordon (2003). "Acts of (Re-)Construction: Traces of Germany in Jane Urquhart's Novel the Stone Carvers". In Antor, Heinz; Brown, Sylvia; Considine, John; Stierstorfer, Klaus. Refractions of Germany in Canadian Literature and Culture. Berlin: de Gruyter. pp. 295–318. ISBN 978-3-11-017666-7."
As I said, one of those obscure 'culture/memory/literature/commemoration' works. But it is there. Also: The Great War in Post-Memory Literature and Film. And Catching the Torch: Contemporary Canadian Literary Responses to World War I. Also Resurgences of the extra-textual and metatextual in Jane Urquhart's 'The stone carvers'. It has been a long time since I had to know what extra-textual and metatextual meant, but the material is out there (the whole 'nationhood forged in WWI' theme is very strong in the histories of the Dominions as they were then and has spawned a whole industry writing about it). To be fair, most of this belongs elsewhere (such as in the article on the novel itself), but mention of this novel has been in the article since 2006. Out of interest, of the works in Category:World War I novels, which would you consider to be 'notable' enough to warrant mention when this kind of question comes up? I had a look, and I'd never heard of The Good Soldier Švejk for instance, though I had heard of a number of the other famous ones. Fascinating. Carcharoth ( talk) 19:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mike Christie, I hope everything is fine. I was wondering if you have the time.. could you take up(look at/review) the "Peer review" for Battle of the Bastards(Season 6, Episode 9 of Game of Thrones ("Spoiler alert if you have not seen the series")). I am trying to get this to a "Featured Artice".. (It has already been passed for "Good Article") and I need some one to review and tell me what to fix/do to make that happen.( Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of the Bastards/archive1) AffeL ( talk) 20:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Owain Knight has moved Anglo-Saxon military organization to Anglo-Saxon Army. This raises a number of issues. 1. It was done without discussion, although a potentially controversial move should have been suggested first on the Talk page. 2. I do not agree with the move. There obviously were Anglo-Saxon armies, but not a single army, and certainly not an Anglo-Saxon Army with a capital "A". 3. There is a separate article on Anglo-Saxon warfare, and I do not see that a separate article is needed on military organisation or army. I would suggest a merger but I do not want to divert from the projects I am working on to sort out a merger, and I do not suppose that anyone else would take it on. As the Anglo-Saxon Army article is unreferenced I think the best thing to do it to delete it - which has been proposed in the past according to a note on the Talk page. Any views? Dudley Miles ( talk) 22:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll write this before I read your essay; I'm very easily swayed! My issue is generally with how opinions, reviews and "receptions" are written. I think this is an issue in almost any article from biographies to film to song where there are no "over-arching" sources such as a biography. If there is such a source, for example saying that "X had good reviews" or "Everyone thought that Y was amazing" that is fine, but a lot of articles do not have this, such as our Emma Stone article and possibly another few I've read recently. In this case, the writers have to find their own "reviews" and that is the problem. Who decides what is representative? Who decides which sources to use? Who decides where to look? To read a lot of reviews and summarise them as "good" or "bad" is OR (unless there is something like Rotten Tomatoes that summarises reviews) and there is a danger that the writers either pick and choose reviews (however subconsciously) or quote so many to make them meaningless or miss out something important. Sometimes there might be one recognised "Gold Standard" review (for example, in my sphere of cricketers that would be Wisden or Cricinfo) but often there isn't. I'm really not sure what the solution is, or if one is needed. Not too sure if I'm making sense, it's been a long day! Sarastro1 ( talk) 21:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for dropping by at the Stone FAC. I have recently filed Swift's article at PR for further scrutiny. If you have time and interest, I'd love to see any comments you have. No hurry and compunction at all. Cheers - FrB.TG ( talk) 10:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank You | |
Thanks for leaving a comment/review on my FAC. The article passed and I just wanted to stop by and say thanks. – jona ✉ 19:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC) |
Ten signed up so far and that's before I've made my general trawl for volunteers which I will do in a couple of days. I'm ready to go live with the proposal when we have, say, a dozen names on the list – what do you say? Brianboulton ( talk) 08:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
Ocaasi,
Samwalton9,
UY Scuti, and
Sadads
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Mike Christie, thank you for taking the time to set up these statistics. Not a big deal, but I did 2 source and 1 "ordinary" reviews in August (not 1:2). As a typical German I double-checked these numbers of course ;). Best regards. GermanJoe ( talk) 17:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Super Science Stories | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 233 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, as we discussed on the FAC, I've found what I think is the most appropriate map to use in the bluebuck article. This map: [1] From this paper: [2] It shows fossil localities, and the written locations of key areas mentioned in the text... FunkMonk ( talk) 20:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
An editor is insisting that in Edward the Elder, "Eadweard cyning" means "Edward of God". I have pointed out at Talk:Edward the Elder#Cyning that cyning means king, and I have reverted twice, but he has each time reverted back. Can you take a look? Dudley Miles ( talk) 16:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
The article GikII has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 08:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello Mike Christie and Jo-Jo Eumerus, unfortunately looking for renewals can be quite time-consuming. On files, where an experienced uploader like AdamBMorgan explicitly mentioned a sufficient search for renewals (as in File:Weird Tales March 1923.jpg), I would usually simply AGF and probably spotcheck just 1 image. Other files with a "not renewed" claim but no apparent previous search should be checked more thoroughly here:
Doing such a check for File:WeirdTalesv30n4pg419 Shunned House.png shows: no renewals for the whole magazine, and a few renewals for some contributions (only 4-5). But no entries that match the file's specific image information (author, image title, etc.) - so this file should be OK. I have added a note to the image's license information for clarity. (see edit history of file) ==> A similar check should be done for a few more images, especially for images from inexperienced uploaders, or when a search for renewals is not explicitly mentioned. Hope that helps a bit, please ping me anytime if you need further information. GermanJoe ( talk) 04:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I apologize for the inconvenience again. Thank you again for your help with previous FAC. I would really appreciate any comments or feedback for my current FAC ( Chad Harris-Crane). The FAC currently has a very users who have commented, and an image review. I would greatly appreciate a fresh pair of eyes with this article, as I want to improve as a contributor on here as I am trying to get some of my GAs promoted to featured articles. I understand that you are busy, so it is completely okay if you are unable or would not like to do this.
The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chad Harris-Crane/archive1. Aoba47 ( talk) 23:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ATS. Ike Altgens is a Featured article candidate. I hope you have a few moments to check this article against the criteria so I may address any concerns and see this nomination through. My thanks in advance. — ATS 🖖 talk 21:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mike, if you have some time I'd value your input here -- quite a lot of commentary but would be good to hear from someone of your broad FA experience. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 13:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
by
Nikkimaria,
Sadads and
UY Scuti
19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
If you don't think there was politicized canvassing in the previous discussion of that stuff, a) look how many times that discussion was flagged for canvassing by different people (and note that all the canvassing was from one direction); and b) go read WT:FAC during the same several weeks, where you'll see ARBCOM-actionable hate-spewing against all MoS editors, personal attacks against specific ones, blatant lies and character assassination about anyone disagreeing with FAC canon, false equivalence and scapegoating of MoS when people said they were leaving WP over the tiresomeness of infobox debates (infoboxes are not an MoS issue at all – MoS is completely neutral on them), and multiple proposals for an "anti-MoS" all for FA and its clique. That's the very definition of politicization. If you go to FAC and try to drum up unnatural attention to another MoS discussion, it's just going to start all over again. Let people who actually care about this, which is probably 5 or 10% of the FAC regulars, come into the discussion on their own, which they inevitably will (and see that their concerns are actually being directly addressed, civilly), instead of being whipped into another anti-MoS crusade as a voting bloc on the basis of false agit-prop. You may have noticed I've been almost entirely absent from WP for weeks on end. It's specifically to get away from the hate-spewing invective of the instigators in that specific crowd. If this were any topical dispute of any kind at all (Israel vs. Palestine, whatever), numerous of those people would be subjected to topic bans, but they get away with it because virtually no admins will enforce discretionary sanctions or anything else if it's an attack on MoS/AT regulars. That, too, is entirely political. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Mike Christie. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mike. An IP deleted "His name means "protector of wealth"." I reverted as I thought it is relevant, and the IP deleted again at [7]. Can you see what you think please. Dudley Miles ( talk) 21:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to take you up on your offer of guidance re selecting projects. Owing to my background and experience, I feel that I can most help out in the articles about history, particularly antiquity. At this time, I'm overhauling the Romulus and Remus article. It needs it! Anyway, thanks for everything. InformationvsInjustice ( talk) 14:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Looks great. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Precious again, your Fantastic Adventures, where "artistic highlights include a galloping T. Rex and a phallic submarine", and your willingness to serve as TFA coordinator!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The Guidance Barnstar | ||
For going the extra mile to help improve my contributions and participation in the community Informata ob Iniquitatum ( talk) 05:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas | |
Hoping you stay warm and have lots of good times and good food this holiday season! White Arabian Filly Neigh |
Hello again! I apologize for always asking for your help with my nominations at FAC. I would really appreciate any comments or feedback on my current FAC ( Love, Inc.). I would greatly appreciate a fresh pair of eyes with this nomination as I have put a lot of work into expanding this article on this relatively obscure television show and want to make it the best that it can be (regardless of whether or not it is promoted) and improve my skills as a user on here as well. I understand that you are busy, so it is completely okay if you are unable or would not like to do this. Just for your knowledge, the FAC currently has three "support" votes and a source and image review.
The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Love, Inc. (TV series)/archive1. Thank you either way, and I hope you are having a wonderful end of 2016 so far (this has been a crazy year). Aoba47 ( talk) 16:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Happy Saturnalia | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
Or maybe a "whimper" button... for this. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, copying in the lead before copying in the blurbs wasn't a mistake ... in fact, in cases where the lead hasn't been copied in, I usually copy it in myself and then self-revert. Some people make great edits at TFAR to the blurbs; some, not so much. So I like to work from the lead as well as the TFAR blurb. Also, it's useful being able to get a diff between the TFA text and the article lead by hitting one button. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if I could ask you to cast your eye over the prose of Viking metal (FAC here)? I'd just like someone to take another look at it. No problem if you can't manage it. Thanks. Sarastro1 ( talk) 00:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mike I was thrilled to see this go to TFA (especially because Maria was a friend) but in case you ever wondered, this is the reason we dislike TFA. In my view Maria went through one of the worst experiences of any woman in terms of bullying, etc, in 2012 when Pilgrim at Tinker Creek ran for TFA. Discussion is here in case you've never seen it. I'm not complaining, just pointing out, in case you were unaware, why some of us run for the hills on TFA day and why a number of us are no longer around or only around sporadically. Victoriaearle ( tk) 02:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
We have a few supports on Burning Rangers (FAC here) but I'd like another look at the prose as no one seems to actually have reviewed that aspect fully. So... if you are at a loose end...! Sarastro1 ( talk) 22:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello again! I apologize for always asking for your help with my nominations at FAC. I would really appreciate any comments or feedback on my current FAC for the Russell family (Passions). I would greatly appreciate a fresh pair of eyes with this nomination as I have put a lot of work into expanding this article on this soap opera and want to make it the best that it can be (regardless of whether or not it is promoted) and improve my skills as a user on here as well.
I understand that you are busy, so it is completely okay if you are unable or would not like to do this. Just for your knowledge, the FAC currently has three "support" votes and a source and image review. I was recently advised to improve the prose and you helped me a great deal with the FAC for Chad Harris-Crane so I would greatly appreciate your help here again.
The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russell family (Passions)/archive1. Thank you either way, and I hope you are having a wonderful start of your new year. Aoba47 ( talk) 05:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by
Nikkimaria (
talk ·
contribs),
Ocaasi (
talk ·
contribs),
UY Scuti (
talk ·
contribs),
Samwalton9 (
talk ·
contribs)
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi there! Could you do a copy-edit on the article above, as well? I think it has many grammar issues (especially tense), and it would help with its GAR. Best, Cartoon network freak ( talk) 15:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, thank you again for your review at my FAC. While revising the article for Russell family (Passions), I noticed that all of the information from the two articles Whitney Russell and T. C. Russell can already be found on the main page related to the fictional family. Even though both articles have been passed as good articles, I think that they can be safely redirected to the Russell family (Passions) article. I was wondering if I could get your opinion about this: if the articles should be redirected and if so, how would I go about the process of doing so? I apologize for any inconvenience. I hope you are having a wonderful day. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nike-X/archive1 - well, I remain a bit concerned about most of the remaining points. I can't say I'm getting warm and fuzzies from the nominator either. The discussion on the source here where I asked "Okay.... then what is the source for the first part of the sentence? If the reference at the end of the two sentences doesn't cover both sentences - does this sort of unsourced sentence followed by a sourced sentence happen elsewhere in the article?" and got a reply of "a) the one before and after it, b) no idea.". Or a further question "Did you access the actual book or just through google snippets/page preview?" and got the reply "I don't recall. " I also remain concerned about the reliance on the source from Bell Labs. Since the whole article appears to imply that Bell Labs was the main contractor, I'm not sure it's the best independent source. But the replies on the other issues above (especially the one about whether the sentence is covered by the source or not) gives me great pause. I just don't have the time to dig into the situation enough to do a full dig into it and get all the sources and see if every sentence matches up to the sources given. I just can't deal with that much flak. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Mike. May I ask you for a favor? I was wondering if you had the time to copyedit Hrithik Roshan. I will appreciate your help (no problem if you cannot). Thank you either way. – FrB.TG ( talk) 14:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Mike. I have nominated Æthelflæd at FAC. Any comments gratefully received. Dudley Miles ( talk) 17:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Btw, I pinged David because he's asked to be pinged for image issues. If you'd like me to ping you as well whenever there's a comment about the image during your month, I'll be happy to. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I thought your first month went really well. - Dank ( push to talk) 00:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Do you hate the Anglo-Saxons? I can't see any other explanation for claiming everything before 600 AD was fake. People never went to such great lengths to make things up, and obvious made-up things (Geoffrey of Monmouth's pre-Cassivelaunus list, Port founding Portsmouth) are obvious. Is it because they were pagans? We have literally nothing other than the textual sources, given the archeological evidence is historically worthless and excavations are rare. To say Ælle wasn't real is ridiculous. There is literally no alternative. If you say he didn't exist then you're damning an interesting area of history to be trampled on and forgotten. The Britons have already had this happen to them (thousands of books about how attested people from the Migration Period didn't exist). ÞunoresWrǣþþe ( talk) 00:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Marvel Science Stories article has been scheduled as today's featured article for February 13, 2017. 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/February 13, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what your workload is like, but I'd appreciate someone taking a look at Nyuserre Ini ( FAC here). It's looking OK on content based on the review, but the prose looks like it needs a little work. No worries if not. Sarastro1 ( talk) 12:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I've nominated the article about the episode Eve Russell for Featured Article consideration. I would really appreciate any comments or feedback on this nomination. I understand that you are busy so it is completely okay if you are unable to do this. I apologize for any inconvenience.
The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eve Russell/archive1. Thank you for your time. Aoba47 ( talk) 04:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello Mike, I don't believe we have really communicated here on Wikipedia before, so nice to meet you ;). Anyway, I see you've been around the block before when it comes to FAC, but you do have a lot on your plate. I'm here because there have been some concerns regarding my open FAC for Make Me Like You and I was wondering if you could assist me, if you're not busy of course. If you are, do you know of anyone else who could possibly help me out? Thank you very much, Carbrera ( talk) 22:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC).
Thanks for the intervention. I could see what was going on, but cant really do anything at work - and it was a long, long, late night week! Ceoil ( talk) 10:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I apologize for the intrusion again. I just have a quick question about the formatting for a few of my references as I keep receiving error messages. I am currently working on an article about an EP in one of my sandboxes ( here), and I keep getting error messages for the following references: 10, 11, and 12. I was wondering if you could help me figure out what I am doing wrong, as I am not sure why the error messages keep popping up and I would like to correct this before doing further work on the rest of my draft. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 ( talk) 03:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Izno: Thank you for your response and I apologize for the trouble. I will be more careful and aware about this in the future. I am not sure why I did not just click on the help links lol. Hope you both have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I just promoted this and noticed that the title of the article isn't italicised like all the other magazine articles (although it is in the main body). Glitch, or deliberate? (Not that the world will end in any case; maybe I'm being thick) Sarastro1 ( talk) 23:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Mike, I'm taking a few days off because of a family emergency. Thought I'd let you know, because I won't be able to reply to your post until I'm back again (but I have seen it). Best, Victoriaearle ( tk) 20:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Mike. An editor has created a set of articles about supposed ancestors of Cerdic of Wessex who are described as Kings of the Anglo-Saxons. These are based on the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which of course does not give them any such title, and is also OR. I think the articles should be deleted as not notable, but is there a way of flagging them without a load of hassle? Maybe the editor should be warned? Dudley Miles ( talk) 12:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I don't know if you came across Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Pūnohu White/archive1. It was closed today because of no traffic and only 1 review after a month. The quality of the article is FAC material in my opinion. I did not ask anybody (except two users) in the initial run to review it since I was trusting that it will receive reviews. Now I am asking a couple of people here and there to see if there is enough interest to renominate it again as recommended by the closing admin. I will only go ahead and renominate it once I find a few people who wants to give it a review. Please let me know if you are interested. Thanks either way.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 01:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Mike, you may be interested in having a look at Boing Boing's Sci-Fi Sundays It features an issue of a SF magazine each Sunday, and discusses the cover and inside art work. — Bruce1ee talk 06:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't discuss this earlier, but now I know what to say. LBR did claim Andha Naal to be the first songless film in all of India (supported by AVM Saravanan), but I think that's erroneous as the honour actually goes to Naujawan (1937). Rather than remove the claim, could we rework the footnote to make it similar to that in Yesterday? Vensatry, what do you say? Kailash29792 (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello!.
I am translating History of US science fiction and fantasy magazines to 1950 and others of your great articles about magazines for the Wikipedia in Spanish language.
Davin (1999) is cited several times in the History article, but I can't find that author in the Sources section. Davin, Pioneers is cited once too.
Is that source missing?
I hope not to bother you or waste your time. Thank you in advance for your response. Regards, -- Furado ( talk) 08:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I've nominated the article about the fictional character Simone Russell for Featured Article consideration. The FAC has received some commentary and a source and image review, but the discussion has stalled over the last week. I would greatly appreciate any comments or feedback on this nomination if possible. I would really appreciate any comments or feedback on this nomination. I understand that you are busy so it is completely okay if you are unable to do this. I apologize for any inconvenience. The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Simone Russell/archive1. Thank you for your time. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)