User talk:Mike Christie/Archive14

TFAs for December

Letting you know Wihtred of Kent has been selected for December 3, 2018 and Other Worlds, Universe Science Fiction, and Science Stories for December 7. Thanks. Hope you are doing well.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for both. I am doing well (and hope you are too), though I'm about to post on Iridescent's talk page which might change that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you the King of Kent! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

It's nice and short! - I saw another short one, - could you perhaps check it for sourcing? Birthday in April. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Now thanks for the other, about three magazines by "one of the more colourful characters in the science fiction world; he was a dwarf, crippled and for periods partly paralyzed, but he still managed to hold down a central position in science fiction magazine publishing for two decades, albeit with some flim-flammery to help"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about Dhammakaya Movement

You might want to weigh in this discussion about the Dhammakaya Movement. Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasonal greetings

		Seasonal Greetings and Good Wishes
		Seasonal greetings for 2018, and best wishes for 2019 to all who continue to fight for good practice and higher standards in building this great encyclopedia. Brianboulton (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Brian, and best wishes to you for health, happiness, and productive editing over the coming year. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasons

	Gothic Seasons Greetings
	Wishing you all the best for x-mass. Mike we have had minor differences of openion in the long and distant past, but I very much respect the trojan work and thought you put into the day to day tending to, and overall guidance of, the FAC process. Ceoil (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil, I really appreciate the kind thought, and the compliment. Thank you. FAC is a satisfying place to hang out because so many people are willing to put in time to make it work. Best wishes of the season to you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2019 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! All the best Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks -- and the same wishes to you! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia

		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 17:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

And best wishes of the season to you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 31

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 31, October – Novemeber 2018

• OAWiki
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Post-RfC stuff

Hi Mike, I've been working on a recap/discussion starter to follow up the RfC at User:Wugapodes/Bibliography review draft. My plan was to tidy it up a bit (probably shorten it a bit) and seek some feedback at WP:VPI, but given the current discussion on WT:FAC I think it's best to wait a bit longer. I think taking the ideas from both these discussions to the Idea Lab for wider input would result in better ideas on how to move forward. What are your thoughts? (Also, you're free to edit that draft all you like) Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 07:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi -- thanks for working on this. A minor point is that I'd switch "prose reviewing" to "content reviewing" and drop the note, or change it to clarify that "content reviewing" includes prose among other things. A bigger issue is that I think it's too long to easily attract editors to the discussion who were not already involved. The current introductory paragraph is a good summary. For the following material, we could do this:

• Recap of the previous discussion: cut the vote counts, which are available via the link if anyone is interested. Change the text structure to three bullets, as follows, and keep it as short as possible:
  • Original proposal: give details...
  • Arguments for opposition: details...
  • Arguments for support: details...

For the "Suggestions" section I don't think there's a need to credit me for the list, and I think you could cut the list of editor's names -- others no doubt were supportive of one or more of those ideas without saying so at the time. How about just making headers of those subsections, and taking the prose you wrote below and dividing it among those bullet points? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Best wishes

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Shepherds (Cariani) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and holiday wishes to you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Austral season's greetings

	Austral season's greetings
	Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Cas! A festive time to you too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry holidays

Hello Mike Christie: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Thanks, and the same to you. I look forward to seeing more geology articles from you at FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I've got a long queue waiting next year (unless the Samalas article becomes FAC ready before New Year) ... after I've done User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/African humid period. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Greetings and a question

Greetings and happy holidays.

I was wondering if you had some time available. I am planning sometime next year to try to get 1257 Samalas eruption through FAC and since that's a topic a mite more complex than my usual volcano articles I was wondering if you could take a gander at it before it's sent to sink or swim. Thanks! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I can; probably not till end of the week. If I haven't posted there by Christmas ping me again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Just confirming that I am still interested in this. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I have house guests, but they're gone by 2 January; if I don't get to this in the next couple of days I should have some more time then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

History of US science fiction and fantasy magazines to 1950 scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the History of US science fiction and fantasy magazines to 1950 article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 11, 2019. 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 11, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for "the story of the early US science fiction and fantasy magazines, up to 1950"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

a time for thanks and praise

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Mike!

I was told to seek you out. I'm a new/old Wikipedian, currently writing the definitive set of articles on SOLRAD. Still trying to find the easiest, most efficient way to do this so that I can spend the maximum time writing good content and the minimum burning out on tedium.

Anyway, a friend noticed my interest in science fiction magazines and suggested I seek you out. :)

Cheers!

--Neopeius (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, glad to meet you! I've written most of the articles on the classic sf magazines, but there are still more to do. If you decide to work on any of the articles, let me know. I also do a fair amount of reviewing on all topics, so if you need another set of eyes on an article you're working on I'd be glad to help out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

Progress is typically the result of compromises. Some folks do not want QPQ because some people would not be good reviewers, and would give shoddy reviews in order to do FAC at all. Others give good reviews, and want to nominate multiple articles at a time, but we could use more reviewers/reviews. What if we had QPQ for multiple nominations? The levels could be very different (e.g. two nominations at once requires six new reviews, two new reviews, etc), but that can be decided later. QPQ would not be needed if you were nominating one FAC at a time. This is partially based off of your own research of QPQ for yourself and trying to come up with a method to use the results. What do you think? Kees08 (Talk) 19:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be hard to get support for anything like you're suggesting, just because QPQ in any form is so unpopular. What I've suggested in the past is a running noms/reviews total such as is kept (with errors) at GAN, displayed against nominators' names, and I think that has a better chance of getting support. One criticism of the idea that came up in the past was that the "what have you reviewed in the last year" numbers I was proposing did not credit people who had done a great deal of altruistic reviewing in the distant past, but not so much recently. When/if I ever finish capturing all the review data, and build some reporting tools, we could address that criticism at least. I'm nearly done with 2010, and expect to process about a year of FACs per calendar month, so I should be done this summer. At least the numbers should be useful in any further discussions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

TFA blurb for article you nominated

Coenwulf is scheduled to run on the main page February 2. I'm helping user:dank with blurbs. My proposed blurb on Coenwulf is in my sandbox. I'm writing because I added that Mercia was an Anglo-Saxon kingdom and that Offa was one of the most powerful kings of the period. I got that from the Offa article, to help the main page readership. Is this OK? Anything else to change? Johnboddie (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine; I'll look in more detail later. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It's now in my Sandbox/3, Mike, with a few tweaks. - Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

JSTOR

Hey Mike, I see you have access to JSTOR. Is there any chance you could get me a copy of this article and email it to me at hjmwiki at gmail dot com? If it's not too much trouble, I might have some more requests in the coming days! Thanks very much, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it's not free through JSTOR, sorry. WP:RX will probably be able to get it for you pretty quickly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, didn't realise that there were articles in JSTOR that weren't included with membership. Thanks for looking anyway! I managed to get the article through a friend. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Coenwulf of Mercia scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Coenwulf of Mercia has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 2 February 2019. Please check that 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 2, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank YOU! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

toggle ref check

Hello, just a note to say that User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck has been update to add the option to toggle it on or off.

. The installed script will add a tab to the drop-down tab at the top, located between the 'watchlist star' and the search box (using the vector.js skin). The tab toggles between "Hide ref check" and "Show ref check" with displaying the errors as the default option. Please do drop me a line if you have any problems or suggestions. Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a great feature to have, but it's not working for me -- I am using this script which does something similar, so perhaps there's a conflict? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Nothing happens at all, or the tabs appear but don't work? Maybe update your cache? Maybe edit Special:MyPage/common.js to add the "2" after User:Lingzhi2? The User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck is now a redirect but maybe editing it will do something to the cache etc.? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I made it Lingzhi2 and that fixed it. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks dude, you rock... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry to bother you again. After the addition of a toggle option in the tab atop the page, one editor requested a revised version in which the toggle link appears in the "Tools" section of the page's left sidebar. So now there are two versions of this tool. If you prefer the links in the Toolbar section on the side, the slightly altered script is named User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck-sb.js (just add "-sb" before the ".js"). Finally, both versions should now also store the page state (whether reference errors/warnings are "hidden" or "shown"). The state persists between page loads and between the browser closing and reopening (unless cleared by the user, for example by deleting data in your browser's cache etc.). Huge thanks to User:Evad37 for much coding help. If you have any questions or problems, please drop me a line. Thanks again. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  I like the sidebar version better; just switched and it works like a charm. This is an enormously useful tool; you should advertise it in a few places, perhaps at the VP. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  That's very kind and encouraging. You know, even tho I've been actually active on Wikipedia for quite nearly a decade now, I have little or no idea how any of its various processes work. I mostly know content writing and content review. I wouldn't have any idea where or how to advertise it. I will look around VP for a forum that seems appropriate.... glad you like the tool! Wasn't it you who requested it... no... you requested something else... anyhow, I'll go look. Thanks! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  I thought I was the one who originally suggested it, but I can't find where now -- maybe it was at WT:FAC? Anyway, you've done far more with it than I thought possible. I'll post a note about it at WT:FAC in the next day or so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  I definitely remember you requesting something or other about GAN. Maybe you requested this as well (two different things). At any rate, thank you again for the encouraging words. Happy Chinese New Year. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Scoops 1934 May 5 cover.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Scoops 1934 February 10 first issue cover.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

A little nitpick

Greetings,

back when we were discussing 1257 Samalas eruption you did advise to send it to peer review before FAC to get more eyes, a suggestion I took up as Allison Guyot wasn't out of FAC yet. Now that it has moved from FAC (promoted), I am wondering if you still think it needs more eyes or whether it can be sent to FAC straightaway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be worth pinging Ceranthor, who did indicate he wanted to post at the PR, to see what they think. That was a pretty extensive talk page review, and my experience is when you get the scissors out like that there are usually some ragged edges left once you've sewn it all back together. Another pair of eyes wouldn't hurt. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

​ OK, thanks. I'll call them. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I'll look over it ASAP. Sorry, RL has been rough lately. ceranthor 22:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 32

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 32, January – February 2019

• #1Lib1Ref
• New and expanded partners
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Help with FAC

Hello again! I have decided to return to the FAC process, as I would like try and put some articles through there at some point in time. This time around, I am just going to have more fun with the process and not take it as seriously. If something does not get promoted, it is not the end of the world and it is really no big deal. I have recently nominated the following FAC, and I have already received three support votes and an image review. I was wondering if you could possibly do a source review if you had the time, since it is a rather small article. I completely understand if you would not like to do so, but I figured that I might as well reach out and ask. Hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi -- glad to hear you're giving it another try, and I think your approach makes sense -- no point doing something you don't enjoy. I can't promise a source review but I do periodically check in at FAC to see if there's anything outstanding that I can do, so if it's still waiting the next time I do that I may well pick it up. Good luck with it! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, and I completely understand. Hope you are doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if you could possibly help out with the above nomination. It has been up for roughly a month, and has received six support votes so far. However, Laser brain believes there should be a more thorough prose review, and I was wondering if you could help with that. I completely understand if you would not like to. It is just frustrating since the nomination is older and it is unlikely a new reviewer will notice something that far down the FAC list in my opinion. Hope you are having a wonderful week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Will try to take a look tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Aoba47, I went to take a look and I see another review has started; I wasn't going to have much time tonight anyway, so I'll let it go for now. Ping me again if you do need another review, and I'll try to keep an eye on it too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. I am very grateful that another reviewer had started to look through the article. I hope you have a great rest of your night. Aoba47 (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Hannah Arendt/GA1

Mike Christie, I was wondering if you would be able to take over the review. The original reviewer declared their inability to finish this back in late November and posted for "2ndopinion" status in the hopes of attracting someone to take over, but no one has and it's now over half a year since the review was first opened. The nominator is still active. Thanks for anything you can do. Hope all is well. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

No objection to it in principle, but a very quick glance at it shows a long history. I'll read it through and confirm I can take it on when I get a chance -- probably tonight unless I have to work late. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonset: I've looked through the review. I don't see anywhere that Josh said he wouldn't continue with it; I know it's been a long time, but have we confirmed with him that he has no plans to return? Or did he post the request for a second opinion to the GAN page? Also I see that Aircorn has already expressed an opinion on whether the article is GA-worthy, and has said the article meets all the criteria except one: focus. If you really need me to look at it I can, but it's a gigantic article and I don't want to put the work in if someone else has already read it to the point of being able to offer the second opinion. If Josh is simply not returning, I would think Aircorn and Michael could come to an agreement on the focus question and Aircorn could then decide whether to promote to GA. If Josh is still involved in any way, he would take Aircorn's input. Am I missing something? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Mike, I think I was missing something in terms of Aircorn and Michael, for which my apologies, but not in terms of Josh: while he didn't post on the review page itself, if you look at the article talk page or the nomination's entry at WP:GAN, it's clear from the note he added to the GA nominee template on the former (reproduced on the latter) that he has withdrawn from the review. I think you're right: they're in a fair way to settling things in terms of focus, which seems to be the big stumbling block. Under the circumstances, I think I'll change the nomination status from 2ndopinion to hold, since someone has finally taken over from Josh, as he requested. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Mike, I'm happy to report that Hannah Arendt was passed yesterday. Would you consider taking over Talk:Indian Administrative Service/GA1 instead? This was nominated back in January 2018 (coming up on 14 months), and the review was opened this past October, but the reviewer, Carabinieri only posted on the first date and not again, and hasn't edited Wikipedia for nearly four months. A potential issue is that SshibumXZ, the nominator, made their most recent edits on February 19 and 20 (and the ones before that were in January); however, they did post their responses (and with some questions of their own) back in November, so there is clearly more to be done. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

No promises, but I'll see if I can take a look this week. If I do have time I have a FAC source review that I ought to do first. I'm busy most of the next few weekends and am very busy at work so I may not have as much time as usual. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely understand. Thanks for considering it once the source review is done. You might want to ping SshibumXZ to be sure they'll be around to fix issues before starting work, and not begin any review until you get an affirmative. If that's still hanging when you have some time available, there is Talk:Tian Feng (magazine)/GA1, nominated last April; the nominator has requested a new reviewer at WT:GAN because the original one opened the review on January 4, posted again on the 6th and 8th, and hasn't been seen on Wikipedia since. I'm going to put a second opinion request on that one. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Satellite Science Fiction scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Satellite Science Fiction article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 11, 2019. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations! Satellite was one of my favorite magazines. I was sad to see it go. I managed to | review a couple of the last issues (I read most of the ones I had before I started the Journey). --Neopeius (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Glad you liked the article! Eventually I hope to improve the articles on all the pre-1970 sf magazines, though that's a long project. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the article about "one of the many science fiction magazines launched in the 1950s, and by no means the worst. Its main claim to fame is probably that it published Philip K. Dick's first novel, The Cosmic Puppets. The publisher, Leo Margulies, was a veteran of the magazine publishing world, and kept it for a couple of years before making the fatal mistake of changing from digest format to letter-size, in an attempt to get more exposure on newsstands. Sales did not compensate for the increased production costs and the magazine was closed down in 1959. Interestingly, the June 1959 issue was in galley proofs when the decision was made, and four copies are known to survive, making it one of the rarest of all science fiction magazines."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks, as always, for your ongoing provision of FAC stats. They are always useful and interesting, and have the effect of reminding me to do more reviewing. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! That last is one of the effects I always hope for of course... Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there a bot that...?

Is there a bot that could find and rank pagesize (maybe via drpda's readable prose stats) of all current FA articles, and far more importantly, generate graphs of mean pagesize of FAs promoted in each period through time (e.g, in Jan. 2017 the mean size was xxx, or perhaps in Jan-Apr, or whatever time range seems reasonable/practical). Actually, given a time series of raw data (promotion date/readable prose size) Many stats and graphs could be done via simple Excel spreadsheets... Ideally the bot would find pagesize at time of promotion (there's a link to the promoted version on article talk), but since FAs usually don't change much, maybe current size would do. But a graph through time is the key point here. Tks! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Not that I know of, unfortunately. Perhaps a TPS will know of something. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Charles Morgan (businessman)/GA1

Mike Christie, I was wondering whether you could talk over this GA review, which has been open since last June and is currently the longest-open review by over 100 days.

Gatoclass has agreed that the best thing to do is to give over the review to someone else for a number of reasons, and since I know you'll do a good job with it, I'm hoping that you'll have the time to take it on. Thank you very much for anything you can do, and apologies once again for my incomplete investigation the last time I asked you for a review. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I’m willing, but I’m out of town right now and very busy at work — I’ve been working late and working weekends — so I can’t promise any kind of timeline. I’m staying with friends for a few days and just have an iPad, which makes it much harder to do a review since I only have the one screen. It’s a long article, so it’s probably not something I can manage in an evening. All of which means it could be two or three weeks till I can look seriously at it.

I see Gatoclass was still responding three weeks ago, so it might be worth giving them one more ping and letting them know I can pick it up, probably some time this month, if they don’t plan to finish the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I linked to our discussion on his talk page to show that Gatoclass agrees that it's time to give it over—Gatoclass just doesn't know when it might be possible to resume the review and that I could find someone else. Two or three weeks will be fine. I'll let them know that you'll be getting to it later in the month. Maybe you could post to the review saying you'll be starting work then, so the nominator knows some action is, if not imminent, on its way? BlueMoonset (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I missed that link. I’ll post to the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonset: I've started the review, but I see Oldsanfelipe hasn't edited in months, so I'm not sure if he'll see it. I'll let it sit for a couple of weeks and we'll see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Mike Christie, for the sake of not wasting your efforts or indeed that of the nom, if your review's not likely to turn into a Gettysburg Address, I could probably do some crossing of i's and dotting of t's and finish it off? ——SerialNumber54129 18:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

That would be great -- the article is certainly at GA standard or close to it, as far as I can tell; the only thing I really can't judge is comprehensiveness, and the previous reviewer seems to have addressed that. I don't expect to find much on a second pass, so I think it will be quite a short review -- the prose is not FA standard, but it's workmanlike, and that's good enough for GA. Please feel free to help out. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Requesting feedback for potential FAC

Hello, I hope you are having a wonderful week! I was wondering if you are willing to provide feedback for an article that I’m eyeing for an FA nomination in the future (no specific timeline; work and other commitments have limited my activity on here). A peer review has been open since mid-January to a tepid response, and given the inactivity of WP:PR, I doubt it’ll inspire much more discussion than that. Whatever you are able to do, I’d very much appreciate it. DAP 💅 20:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi -- sorry, but I can't promise anything; I just realized earlier this evening that I'd forgotten about an obligation on-wiki that'll take me a while, and I should do that first. I'm also working long hours right now so I don't have much spare time. If things calm down I will try to take a look, but please don't wait for me. I did manage a quick look at the critical reception section, since that's often a weak point in film articles; you have a bit of the "A said B" problem in the second and third paragraphs of that section. If I don't get to it, good luck with the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

No worries, I understand. Have a great week! DAP 💅 04:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Request

Mike, in the recent PR for Cut the Crap, Ian suggested that I contact you for advice on the "critical reception" section. These, imo are parts of popular music articles that can go horrible wrong, i.e. become quote farms, and I remember you writing advice on how to deal with them, but cant find it to hand. Anyway, I would very much like if you could take a look, any structural pointers, in particular for this page, or in general for artist / album / song articles, would be great. I uderstand if you are busy and thanks either way. Ceoil (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections. --Izno (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Cheers Izno, this is a great touchstone for reviewers. Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I should be able to take a look. I've been busy for weeks but was planning on trying to do some editing this weekend. I'll at least look at the critical reception section, and if I have time at the rest of the article if you like -- I have a couple of other requests I should try to look at too so I don't know how much time I'll have. The essay Izno links above contains most of my thoughts on reception sections; Czar also made a quite a few improvements to it -- I hope it's helpful. More tomorrow, I hope. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Requesting FAC review

Hey Mike, I’ve been working on the British National (Overseas) article for a while and I’ve listed it as an FAC. I’ve been able to get three supports so far, and I wanted to reach out to ask if you’d be willing to review (and hopefully support!) it as well. Would appreciate your thoughts on the article if you could take a look at it. Thanks, Horserice (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I have guests arriving tomorrow and have been pretty busy, but if I have time I will try to take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

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.

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Replied. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Random question (yet again)

Hello. I hope your week is going well. I have been inspired lately to work on literature articles, and I have a question about it.

I am currently working on the Little Eva: The Flower of the South article. It is a very odd slice of American history. It is very much a rough draft and I will be working on it a lot more in the future. I found a nice amount of scholarly articles on the book, but I cannot find any critical reviews or information on its commercial performance. It is an older book published for a niche audience and even its exact publication date is uncertain. Given that, I am not surprised about these two gaps. I tried looking through newspapers.com to no success. I could access newspapers from the right time period, but there is just not any information.

I would like to put this article up for GAN when I am done (and possibly a peer review and an FAC, but that is very far in the future). I am concerned how reviewer would respond to the lack of this type of information in the article. Do you have any recommendations for this? Apologies for the random question. Aoba47 (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

If you've done a diligent search and there are no reviews, you should be fine at GAN, and probably at FAC too. I had a look in Google Scholar and you are already citing the only two useful looking papers I could find. It's hard to prove a negative, but after all, if a reviewer does come up with more material, it will improve the article, so it's not like that would be a bad thing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response, and I completely agree with you. If a reviewer or an editor provides more material, than I would be more than happy to incorporate it into the article. I just did not want it to be a quick-fail situation if that makes sense lol. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Scientific Detective Monthly for TFA...

You know the drill - 3 May 2019. Blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 3, 2019. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't imagine how you did this every month for any length of time. By the time I'm done with one month, I am so cranky and bitchy that it's a good thing I have two months off before I have to schedule again. All praise Mike for his even keel... heh! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the compliment, but you know I resigned the position after a year, and I am impressed with anyone who can deal with it longer than that. It’s a job that looks quite easy from the outside, but is finicky and important to get right. I hope it’s not keeping you away from article work! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the article, "Scientific Detective Monthly is an oddity; a magazine that tried to appeal to both detective story fans and fans of the burgeoning (in 1930) field of science fiction. It failed at both, and is now one of the rarest of all genre magazines", and for the scheduling you did/do (both!), and the stats. I wasn't in last month because simply too many people die without a decent article, and that absorbs about the time I have. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda; and never apologize for doing article work! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome, and I only explained ;) - I really tried to get to a review, which I also consider article work, and am very happy when things change initiated by my review, but then April was too short a month. Two of the ladies wo recently died are presently on the Main page, - it's sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Toki Pona/GA3

Mike Christie, I was wondering whether you could take a look at this GAN, and perhaps take over the review.

The review was started on January 10 with a significant list of issues. The nominator replied on January 31 that the issues had been addressed. Since then, nothing, despite a ping from the nominator in early March.

The reviewer, IJzeren Jan, posted a "retired" banner on their talk page on February 25; they were still doing some edits at the end of March, so I posted User talk:IJzeren Jan#Talk:Toki Pona/GA3 to inquire; their reply a week later seemed to be saying they would/might get back to it when they had the time, but it would be better if others look at the nomination as well. It's been another six weeks, they haven't edited Wikipedia in a month, and I think it's time to consider this abandoned.

Thank you for anything you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry -- I've become really busy in real life outside work, and am barely editing at all these days. I just remembered I left some notes at the GA for Charles Morgan (businessman) and haven't heard back from the nominator yet; if they reply I'll try to find time to continue to work on that, but I shouldn't take on any other commitments at the moment. Perhaps someone watching my talk page would be interested? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

If they are interested in this, that would be great. The nominator of Charles Morgan hasn't returned despite pings; I wish I were optimistic that they will show up, given how long it's been since they last edited. I hate to think that they would have given up... BlueMoonset (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 33

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019

• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Aelle name.jpg

The file File:Aelle name.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Scoops (magazine)

TFA for 30 June 2019. You know the rest.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for "the biggest blunder British science fiction ever made": a short-lived weekly boys paper that was born and died in 1934. The paper would be quite forgotten now if it were not the first attempt at a regular British science fiction magazine." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 34, May – June 2019

• Partnerships
• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Science Fiction Quarterly scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Science Fiction Quarterly article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 14, 2019. 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 14, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the article about "one of four science fiction magazines that Louis Silberkleit, later one of the publishers of Archie Comics, published intermittently over a couple of decades"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You deserve this for all the good work on the FP. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Unfortunately real life is preventing me from doing much more than the FAC stats at the moment, but I hope to have more spare time by the end of the year to get back to editing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Ursula K. Le Guin

It's been some years in the making, but I hope to send Ursula K. Le Guin to FAC soon. Given the scope of the article, I would very much appreciate some additional feedback before I venture there, if you happen to have the time; mostly about the broad strokes, rather than the nitty-gritty. I already have an article at FAC, so there isn't a hurry; and of course, I understand completely if you're too busy. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm interested, and will try to take a look, but I am very busy in real life and have barely any spare time for Wikipedia for the next few months, so I can't promise anything I'm afraid. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

No worries; real life comes first. I'd appreciate anything you have to offer. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

graph FA prose size

Hey. Hope things are going well. I'm still gonna make a graph, or a few graphs, of FA prose size thru time (moving averages etc). I'm using exported data rather than a bor. But I will be unable to work on it for two or perhaps even three weeks. If you wanna do that using your bot, then pls let me know so I won't spend more time on it. But if not, I'll get it done very soon after my busy spell ends. ... Oh after I pressed "Publish" I saw the thread above where you mentioned you're busy too. Best of luck in your endeavors. Cheers. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, not going to get to it I'm afraid. I look forward to seeing your data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Analog Science Fiction and Fact scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Analog Science Fiction and Fact has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 6 August 2019. Please check that 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/August 6, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for Analog Science Fiction and Fact, "about the most important magazine in the history of science fiction. For a few years, from the late 1930s, the editor, John W. Campbell, completely changed the field, and launched the careers of numerous famous sf writers, most notably Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Bot me up, Scottie

Just FYI, I put in a bot request to check the prose size of FAs a long time ago; no response. So I'll have to do it myself. It may take weeks because I've never done it before. First couple of weeks will probably be spent just reading. Prefer to do it in Python but Javascript would be kinda possible. Hope all is well. Saw the Framageddon. That WMF action is the most un-Wikipedian or anti-Wikipedian thing I've ever seen, bar none-point-none. Recall that ... what was it called? .. Esperanza was neutron-torpedoed for secrecy. WMF is Esperanza on zombie-apocalypse steroids now... Again, hope all is well... Cheers. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

You might be able to steal code from Dr. pda's script. All is well; hope the same is true for you. Am not editing much these days -- real life got very busy recently -- but I should be back to it around the end of the year. I haven't really kept up with FramGate; I wasn't on-wiki much when it happened and only found it about it afterwards. I have certainly seen Fram go overboard on negative comments, so I would say it's at least possible he did something for which a ban was appropriate, but I'm glad that ArbCom is going to be able to see the evidence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Doing things w/o arbs knowing is too Inquisition-like for me... Oh I was reading about bots and gosh if I had forgotten about exporting Wikipedia files. Just now exported all FAs to one file and relevant talk pages to another. Using Python on my laptop will be easily-peasily. That good in one way (less time and effort) but I actually was kinda happy to have the excuse to learn about making bots. Now no excuse. Anyhow, full report done much much much sooner. Cheers and best in all thing ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

FYI Update Good news and bad news. So I exported all FAs and wrote a little python prog that works quite well to get prose size. I posted some results on WT:FA and someone compared ny results to those from the articles' prior reviews. Turns out some articles have had very significant amts of new text added since Promotion. That seems to ruin the whole tactic of using Export instead of a bot. Export can only export ALL (or none...) of the history of a page. Doing that for 5610 pages would be monstrous, I need to get only the Promoted version. I am a little discouraged. May give up. So anyhow, later. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you get around that by using the ArticleHistory link to the promoted version? It should be possible to build a table of URLs from those links, and then use that table to loop through. Not a Python coder myself so I don't know how easy that would be. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

A bot probably could. Almost certainly could. But I was going botless via Export. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Science Fantasy (magazine) scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Science Fantasy (magazine) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 25, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 25, 2019, 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 on or after October 1, 2018, 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 up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Science Fantasy (magazine) scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Science Fantasy (magazine) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 25, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 25, 2019, 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 on or after October 1, 2018, 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 up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019

• Wikimania
• We're building something great, but..
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• A Wikibrarian's story
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 36

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 36, September – October 2019

• #1Lib1Ref January 2020
• #1Lib1Ref 2019 stories and learnings

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Venture Science Fiction scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Venture Science Fiction article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 4, 2020. 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 4, 2020, 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 on or after October 1, 2018, 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? 14:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2020 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! All the best Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! And best wishes of the season to you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 21 December 2019 (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 16:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

And a happy holiday season to you too, from the not-really-anything-this-year person. Hope to get back to editing more some time next year. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

		Faithful friends who are dear to us
		... gather near to us once more. May your heart be light and your troubles out of sight, now and in the New Year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy; same to you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Help with a FAC

Hello again! Hope you are having a wonderful end of the year. An editor recently suggested that my current FAC could use a "fresh set of eyes", and I was wondering if you could help if you had time or interest. I have done quite a bit of editing to the article in the past few days to address the FAC concerns and incorporate new sources, but I will refrain from doing any edits to the future to allow time for potential editors to read through and comment on a stable version. I would of course understand if you either are not interest or do not have the time for this, but I thought I might as well ask since you have helped me a lot in the past. Either way, happy holidays! Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi -- sorry, I had to turn down Gerda above for lack of time, and I'm afraid I have to turn this down too. I hope to get back to FAC in a few months and would be happy to help out then, but at the moment I am swamped in real life. Best of luck with it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• No worries! Thank you for answering. I am taking a break from Wikipedia due to my own real life obligations so I completely understand it. Hope you have an awesome end of the year! Aoba47 (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

FAC stats

Mike, thanks as always for your stats. It is great that whatever people 'feel' about the movements in the FAC process, you can provide some solid numbers they can take into account. Thanks very much for these - and for the guilty feeling I get when I realise I have been rather lazy (or busy) over the preceding month to have done much reviewing work. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad to hear they're useful. Wish I had time to participate more myself; next year... Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Charles Morgan GA-review

Hi Mike Christie: Thank you for reviewing Charles Morgan (businessman). Illness forced me into an extended hiatus and I am returning to Wikipedia editing, though at a lower level of participation than before. I understand why you cannot pass the article without addressing the issues. Wikipedia must go on! I will reread the article, take a look at the issues, and I will notify you when I have things in order. Thanks for your patience, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi; yes, just let me know when you're ready for me to take another look at it. I'm not very active myself at the moment, but should be able to find time for this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Conflicting bot messages

Thanks for improving and reviewing Charles Morgan (businessman). It's unclear to me whether this passed. A bot posted a "pass" message on the article's talk page, but another bot posted a "fail" message on my talk page. Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

It definitely is a GA now, whatever the bot says. I've posted a question about the bot's behaviour at WT:GA, but I think we're fine; it's got the GA rating on the talk page and it's listed in the GA articles. We'll see what the experts at WT:GA say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again. If it's to your taste, I have biographical article at peer review, this one about Stephen F. Austin's secretary, who was later a legislator for the short-lived rival government in Coahuila, and a main financier of Texas Independence. Best regards, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually barely editing at the moment; I am very busy in real life but came back for the GA review because I had promised to do so -- I can spare the time when I need to but am trying to get a long project finished in real life. I should be able to edit more again in a few months and will keep an eye out then for your work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 37

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019

• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you today for Science Fantasy (magazine), "one of the mainstays of British science fiction for seventeen years, from 1950 to 1967. It helped launched the careers of Michael Moorcock and J.G. Ballard, and is also remembered as a showcase for the less famous Thomas Burnett Swann, an American author of historical fantasies."! - Also for your monthly stats, - so to be not active there as much as I'd want to, - three recent deaths on th Main page today that I cared for, and missing Márta Kurtág, - a sad record, - keeps me busy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you today for Super Science Stories, "a companion to Astonishing Stories, which recently went through FAC: Super Science Stories and Astonishing Stories were sister magazines for much of their existence. Both were fairly minor magazines in the overall history of science fiction, but they had their moments and I hope I've managed to highlight them."! - Would you have time to look at a FAC in need? For this year, I want to write it's companion, much is still missing, so please understand that I'm not seen at other FACs right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Gerda, thanks for the note. I'm afraid I'm barely editing at the moment; I'm too busy in real life to have any significant time to spare right now. Best of luck with the FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, and understand. I don't need luck right now (and we have plenty of time for a second round if needed until next Christmas, hoping that we'll still be around) but someone to simply say that a background section in a FA may also appear in a similar article. It was removed, twice, and I'm on 1RR, voluntarily. Watch my talk for seasonal greetings for the days to come. I miss Brian. DYK that he and Tim riley invited me to Messiah? ... that he wrote the best peer review comments ever, for Franz Kafka? ... for watching over BWV 4? ... and much more, - need to go, RL also for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you today for Venture Science Fiction, "a short-lived companion to the much better known Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction. It is fairly unusual in that it had three quite distinct incarnations, though the British edition only included reprints."! - I hop you got the seasonal message? Will update for the Beethoven-year, just watch ) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you today for Ghost Stories (magazine), about "an early fantasy pulp magazine. It was probably doomed from the start by its narrow focus on ghost stories, but it puttered along for several years in the 1920s and 1930s, and occasionally published material by well-known authors."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Ghost Stories (magazine) scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Ghost Stories (magazine) has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 3 February 2020. Please check that 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 3, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I’ll add this to my watchlist since you seem swamped in real life...Ealdgyth - Talk 00:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Bravo Mike! I knew this had to be your work. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! A lousy magazine, as far as I can tell (it's one of the few I've never owned a copy of) but it was fun to write. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

fac stat question

Hi Mike. I just looked at your FAC stats for the month. Thanks for compiling these. Not being a significant participant in FAC, I was curious to see if the source review I started was reflected (after confirming that I started it in January), and I didn't see it. (It's in Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bank_War/archive3#Source_review_(content).) I'm not complaining, simply wondering if it was not included because it has not concluded yet (the review, and/or the FAC), or was just missed. I can imagine a few different approaches to compiling this data and I'm not sure which you use. Outriggr (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not included because the FAC is not yet promoted -- I tabulate data per the monthly pages at the featured log and the archived log. It's a bit misleading when I say "January reviewers"; I should really say "reviewer data for all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted in January", but that's a bit of a mouthful. So if Bank War gets promoted this month, your name should show up in the February data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. If that was the methodology, I was going to suggest you could include a short sentence about it with your post. Regards, Outriggr (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree; I'll add something to this month's post and include the same caveat in the future. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

My FAC reviews

I was checking that I have reviewed at least 3x the number of FAs that I have and was wondering if you had a page with that stat. I have only recently started participating in the FA process (within the last couple of years, maybe 3 at most?). Kees08 (Talk) 03:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Guitarist (magazine)

Mike--no one I know knows serials like you do. I know this isn't exactly 1950s UFO stuff, but could you maybe do a short run-through, trimming and adding a reference or two? I know you can do in five minutes what would take me hours to do... Thanks for any help you can give! Drmies (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi -- unfortunately my refs are nearly all sf-specific, not magazine-specific, so I don't have any advantages. And at the moment I have a filthy head cold. The project that has been keeping me busy for a few months is on hiatus for several weeks, though, so I may have time to look into it, but I can't promise anything, I'm afraid -- I was thinking I might have time to review a FAC or two in the next week but we'll see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Naruto

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for March 23, 2020. 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/March 23, 2020.—Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Since you seem interested in citations, here's a few things you might like

• WP:CITEWATCH (see also Signpost article explaining what it is)
• WP:UPSD – Script to detect unreliable sources
• WP:Citation expander – Gadget to more easily fill citations (and cleanup tips)
• Also the new Beall's list is at https://beallslist.net/, since [1] has been hijacked.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

try it now

try it now ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Works like a charm. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

FA: Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)

Hi. I found your name at a recent nomination and wanted to ask if you could perform a source review for my nomination of Aftermath (Rolling Stones album). It has received several substantial reviews, leading to 4 supports and a successful image review. isento (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I have multiple reviews going on at the moment, and am unwilling to take another one on yet. It's listed at the source/image review requests section of WT:FAC; someone will pick it up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Open Here

Hey Mike. Just wanted to follow back up with you on your comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Open Here/archive2. I think where we left things there was an outstanding question about the use of one quotation blurb. I had responded that with my rationale for why its used the way it is, but I'm also fine with removing it if you like. Hope you don't mind me hitting up your talk page! I know that when unresolved comments are lingering it sometimes discourages other editors from chiming in, and the last FAC closed largely due to inactivity, so I'm just a little anxious to keep this one going if possible. LOL Thanks for your feedback and participation so far! — Hunter Kahn 15:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem checking in with me; sorry, I've been a bit distracted the last few days. I started several reviews and was hoping to go back through and make sure they were all up to date this weekend, but have had to go in to the office this morning, so that's delaying me. I should be able to take a look by the end of the day -- sorry about the delay. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello and Favour?

Hi Mike! Long time, no talk. I do hope all's well with you, not least in these crazy times we're living in. I'm writing because I have (again) some students working on some articles this semester, which we hope to submit for GA consideration, and wondered if you could give them any feedback. The one that's closest to nomination, I think, is Gregorio Cortez. It's still a bit ragged at the edges, and in some ways its an odd topic in any case (about someone who is mostly known for one incident, celebrated in song and later analyzed in a rather important book), but I think it's nearly there, thanks to hard work from User:Pechodor13, User:Chr66, and User:Maymolina. Any feedback you had for them, with a GA nomination in mind, would be very welcome. Only, of course, if you have the time. Thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Of course -- I'd be delighted to help. It's less than a week since I posted somewhere about students editing, and got an immediate response of "Nobody has been able to manage student editing on Wikipedia as well as jbmurray"!

Things are as crazy here in NY as you might expect -- we've had a couple of COVID-19 cases at work so my department is working on getting scores of people access from home this week, but I should have time. I will try to restrict myself to the talk page so I can do the GA reviews too, if you'd like me to do that. Hope you're well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

You are the best! And yes, if you were up for a GA review or two (I see backlog, and of course hope to jump in and help out, so I am not burdening the system), that would be fantastic!

Here, all university teaching has gone online. Which is a special pity for me, as I have had a really nice group this semester. But UBC tells us it has had no cases so far. We are trying to avoid going stir-crazy at home. Keep safe! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you today for Naruto, "about a Japanese manga series that focus on Naruto Uzumaki, a character who wishes for acknowledgement from the people in his hometown and to become their new leader"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Knap Hill Camp map M.E. Cunnington 1911.png

Thanks for uploading File:Knap Hill Camp map M.E. Cunnington 1911.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Chestnuts and Summary Style

Hi Mike; hope that you're doing well and staying safe amid the current viral outbreak. I haven't been on Wikipedia for the past week and thus only just logged on to find both that the Chestnuts Long Barrow has been awarded FA status and that you had raised concerns about the article (and, by extension, other articles in the series) having too much contextual discussion. The FAC might have ended I'd be very happy to discuss this further. I certainly wouldn't want to see much removed as I think the contextual information is important but I'd be interested in hearing your suggestions for what might be cut or trimmed back. All the best. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi -- congratulations on the promotion to FA, by the way; and yes, I'm staying safe and hope you are too. I can post some specific suggestions at Talk:Chestnuts Long Barrow if you like, but generally I was concerned at the relative weight of the components of the article, rather than feeling that any specific paragraph was excessive. I feel a reader coming to one of the articles in the group about a specific site should find sufficient context to understand the material, but not enough to make it scarcely worth their while to go to the parent article. I think the balance is currently too much in favour of putting all the context in the child articles at the moment. There's nothing wrong with the material itself, and I do think it's a matter of judgement, which is why I left my support standing at the FAC. It also occurs to me that the balance might be difficult to get right until Medway Megaliths is improved -- are you considering taking it to FAC perhaps? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking of only turning my full attention to the Medway Megaliths article itself once I had got all of the individual articles on the constituent sites up to FA or at least GA (there are currently only two more that are neither FA or GA, which I'd like to get through GAN later this year). I'll have more of a think about it over the next few weeks to see what could be trimmed out of the articles. Will crack on with the comments you posted over at Talk:Addington Long Barrow now. Regards, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:VisualEditorTableCopyBugScreenshot.jpg

The file File:VisualEditorTableCopyBugScreenshot.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mike Christie, I'd rather not step on Fastilys toes but if you'd rather it were kept you're more than welcome to add the image to the discussion, Most admins will only look at "File usage" on the image and if empty will assume it's not being used anywhere,

Given the image was a part of a discussion personally I'd prefer it kept but that's me lol,

Happy editing, Thanks, Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 14:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense. I think I'll remove the prod; thanks for the note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome :), Happy editing, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Cut The Crap...

Although a newcomer to Wikipedia editing, I am extremely knowledgeable on the subject. Notifying you this article is repeatedly incorrect and a biased point of view that is non encyclopedic. I am pointing this out in order to obtain a neutral non aggressive stance for Wikipedia. Therefore how do you propose we move forward to rectify this Wikipedia dilemma? Regards and be well, Miss-Pronunciation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss-Pronunciation (talk • contribs) 18:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi — I’m not personally an expert on the topic, but the material you cut was sourced, which is what concerned me. It’s true that we should present a neutral point of view, so I’d suggest you post a note on the article talk page making the case that the article as it stands is biased. For example, if you can cite other reliable sources that contradict, or which might balance, the sources currently used, that would be helpful. The main editor of the article, Ceoil, is very knowledgeable about Wikipedia rules re neutrality and I’m sure will be happy to correct any bias that can be demonstrated, but the demonstration would have to be sourced. Does that seem a good way to go? And if you have any questions about editing here I’d be happy to help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, some of Miss-Pronunciation's removals I'm probably ok with, having worked on the Bernard Rhodes article, and having founded some sources which give a more positive view of this role. Can I have time to go through, and will comment on the Cut the Crap talk page. Ceoil (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Have made a start[2]. Mainly due to additional sources that credit Rhodes with more of a hand in the writing that I had previously found. Sorry Mike for hi-jacking your talk, have contacted Miss-Pronunciation on their talk separately. Its great to have input from somebody who obviously has a lot of knowledge and insight, but to note, there has been a lot of friction and contradicting eachother between the mainly players in this over the years. Balance, as mentioned above is key.Ceoil (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Picture of the day

I have added an extra image to the Marvel Science Stories page because the image is to be the "Picture of the day" on 18 April, and I needed to anchor the caption to an article. If you feel the extra image should not be there, maybe you could remove it after the 18th. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks; it looks fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

Happy First Edit Day!

Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Pekarangan

Hi!

I'm the FA nominator of the article -- I wanted to ask for more feedback on the nomination page, but it's already archived so asking here is probably a good alternative.

First of all, thank you for the review! I wasn't aware of the article's weak spots, and perhaps there are much more of them I'm still unaware of. I have to learn a lot when it comes to comprehensive writing in English (since it's not my mother tongue), so please correct me more if you can.

I've made minor fixes per your review, and have some responses/questions:

• "Yields of the gardens offer various uses...." changed to your exact suggestion in the review.
• "Otto Soemarwoto and Gordon Conway accounted that the gardens..." -- 'accounted' changed to 'suggested'.
• Redundancy of 'fragmentation' in the second lead paragraph: The prose is rephrased: "The sustainability and social roles of pekarangans have been threatened by mass urbanization and land fragmentation, which are the factors of decreasing land dwelling area on average. The decrease is consequently followed by loss of plant diversity within the gardens."
• You said that "...spatially arranged according to local values" is vague -- perhaps this is a good alternative, but I'm not sure: "....according to traditional beliefs and values, such as the philosophy Tri Hita Karana in Bali." I wanted to avoid explaining the philosophy further, as it might disturb the flow of the paragraph. I haven't wrote the alternative in the article yet -- is it good enough or is there any error in the prose?
• On the word 'intentional' in "intentional human intervention": I wrote 'intentional' to distinguish "intentional human intervention" from "unintentional human intervention" (not explicitly mentioned); one example is "seed scattering by ... humans after they eat" (in the manner of throwing them away as waste, hence not intentional) that is among the janteun ku anjeun process mentioned before.
• Using the same word across several sentences in a row is definitely a redundant thing, but what about synonyms with similar suffixes (e.g. using 'usually', then 'generally', then 'commonly' across those sentences)?

More to come. Thank you! Dhio (talk?) 07:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dhio, sorry the article didn't make it to FA this time, but I'd be glad to help. Let's move this conversation to the article talk page, though; it makes most sense to have it where others interested in the article will naturally come across it. I am working on two or three other reviews at the moment so my time might be a little limited for a few days, but I'll try to take a look soon -- tonight if I can. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Questions are copied to the article's talk page. Thank you for the willingness to help :) Dhio (talk?) 02:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Caught in a meta-wiki block

A note for any talk page watchers: I am caught in a global block and can't edit from my home PC; fortunately I can VPN to my work PC and post from there, but I can't do most of my editing from there because of poor response time. I'm emailing the stewards and will resume editing here once the block is lifted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

That was quick. Looks like it's already lifted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Using C14 to date pottery

There is an article in tomorrow's issue of Nature on dating archaeological pottery by measuring the amount of 14C in absorbed food residues.

• Casanova, Emmanuelle; et al. (2020). "Accurate compound-specific 14C dating of archaeological pottery vessels". Nature. 580 (7804): 506–510. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2178-z.

Let me know if you don't have access. - Aa77zz (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't have access; if you could let me have a copy that would be great. Thanks for the heads up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Sent - Aa77zz (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Very interesting, and looks like it could revolutionize some site datings. I'll think about how to incorporate a sentence into radiocarbon dating; or go ahead if you have an idea of where it should go. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Issue 38, January – April 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020

• New partnership
• Global roundup

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

TFA

I'm put Unknown (magazine) up on the main page for May 6, 2020. Please note that I attempted to write the blurb - feel free to whack it however you see fit, it is only the second blurb I've tried to write! Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 6, 2020. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks; the blurb looks good -- I fixed a typo. I don't usually care if the articles I've worked on are TFA, but I like this article and am fond of the magazine -- it's the only one I'm retaining as I sell off my collection. It'll be nice to see it on the front page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Ack, you're selling your collection? No, I'm not interested in buying... I'm not a big pulp fan as a collector, myself. I reserve my collecting for horse stuff, but ... got tired of lugging stuff around? --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I did get tired of moving it (200 1-foot-cube boxes is a lot of moving) but that wasn't the real reason. I had a fairly complete collection of both pulps and digests -- I was missing some early Amazings and Wonder Stories, but other than that I had complete runs of most things, with just a few things missing. I also had about five or six thousand sf and fantasy books, and another eight or ten thousand non-sf. The problem was that now I'm overpaid and can afford to buy whatever I want (well, within limits) the internet has taken a lot of the fun out of collecting. I used to go to second-hand bookstores, and check dealer catalogues, looking for the last issue of Nebula I was missing. Now I can pick up a copy whenever I want, so it's just a question of money. I more or less stopped collecting a few years ago, and finally realized a couple of years ago that I just didn't need to have the magazines or the books in the house any more. So I've cut it down to the books I really want to have in the house, which is still an alarming amount -- probably two or three thousand total. Should be a lot easier to move, though! And now when I go to a bookshelf I see only books I am glad to have in the house. Sure I can't tempt you to buy one or two? :o) I still have the January 1930 Astounding available... Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No. I have a very nice first edition Stranger in a Strange Land and a signed first edition White Dragon, which pretty much satisfy me on my older collecting. I think the only "old" book I desire in first edition now is Left Hand of Darkness and The Dispossessed. (I continue to collect David Weber and S. M. Stirling...) We have .. 3000 or so sci-fi books and then ... we have my history and horse books, which I'll just say outnumber the sci fi by a good bit. But... we're never moving again so I can settle into the piles of books with pleasure (once I get the last bits out of storage units...) Offspring has already claimed the sci fi as his own when we depart... and he knows what archives/libraries to give the horse books too. That just leaves the history books, and I suspect that one of the local colleges near here is going to get those, what the offsprign doesn't keep himself. --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Wish I could be sure I was never going to move again, but I doubt I'll retire on Long Island. By the way, since you're here, what do you think of the paragraph mentioning Shirley Jackson in Unknown (magazine)? It was added a long time ago by another editor; I didn't cut it (WP:OWN, and it's sort of notable), but I don't really think it belongs. Do you think it's worth keeping? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm just about to go out to get a new mouse ... if I don't reply about this by tonight... ping me tomorrow? Its really very ... hectic right now. Heh. For all the "stay home" thing going on ... we're freaking ass busy. --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to cut it; take a look if you have time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Good cut. (Not only did I secure a mouse, but I managed to get a big refill bottle of liquid hand soap (which has been difficult to find lately) and a deep fryer (which we probably didn't need but...)) --Ealdgyth (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Everybody needs a deep fryer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the Unknown, a "pulp magazine launched in 1939, Unknown was one of the most influential fantasy magazines ever published. It was a companion to Astounding Science Fiction during the Golden Age of Science Fiction, and introduced the rigour of good science fiction plotting to the world of fantasy. Historian Mike Ashley believes that the modern genre of fantasy was founded by Unknown, which is remarkable because it only lasted for four years. It was one of the few pulp magazines aimed at a mature and intelligent readership, and the memoirs of long time science fiction fans and authors are full of laments for its passing in 1943, a victim of wartime paper shortages."! Thank you also for a little mature and intelligent feature this magazine comes with. Did you know that today, my DYK #1400 is up? - "... be glad ..." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

TFA (June 2020)

This is to let you know that the The Thrill Book article has been scheduled as today's featured article for June 25, 2020. 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/June 25, 2020.—Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

FAC

Hi, I didn't see any rules about how this process of urgent FAC submissions works, and that's why I took the liberty of adding the nomination myself. I'm pretty upset about the limited interest the article is generating. Do you have any idea what I should do to attract a review from one of the reviewers? It was suggested that I invite editors on the Wikiprojects, but nothing has come out of it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Things are slow at FAC at the moment, but the coords aren't archiving much at all, so I don't think you need to worry about that for now. I reverted you because that list is intended for the ones most in need of extra reviews, and if people add their own FACs it'll be harder to make sure it's a fair list. There are quite a few FACs older than yours, after all. Mostly it's the coords who edit that list; I've done it a few times but I try to be careful to only add ones that are near the bottom of the list and very clearly need the extra input. As for getting extra reviewers, that's always a struggle. Have you tried reviewing other people's nominations? There's no quid pro quo for reviewing, but people do tend to look more kindly on requests if you've done a review for them, though if they're busy they may not be able to reciprocate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind explanation. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, since you have been helpful a week ago, I would really be grateful if you could weigh in on this discussion I started. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

FACStats

Hi - I just noticed your FACstats page. Do you do this by hand or is it auto-generated somehow? I run the bot that updates WP:WBFAN, which picks out (at least tries to pick out) the nominator(s) for each successful nomination. I noticed your conversation with Kees08 from a while ago where several of his/her noms were missing from the list at WBFAN. If you've noticed any other anomalies, please let me know (and, if I don't respond, keep hounding me until I do - I'm not very active here at the moment). Thanks! -- Rick Block (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I do it by hand; I have a giant Excel spreadsheet and I've been gradually going through old FACs putting together the data. I'm currently working on March 2008, so I'm about 60% of the way through; maybe a bit more than that given that the very earliest FACs were very short. I capture declarations and reviews. If I ever get all the data entered, I'd like to build a tool that would report the information by user -- how many FACs they've nominated, how many reviews they've done, and so on.

Since I don't yet have it in a database, I only run queries like that when someone asks a question, but when it's all entered I would think it would be easy to do some cross-validation. I was planning to do something like that anyway since WBFAN is an obvious way for me to check my own data. As far as I can tell from the checking I've done, my data entry error rate is at least 1%, so I would expect to find lots of mistakes.

You're welcome to the data I have now, if it's any use to you, but as I say it currently is only complete back through April 2008. And if I do find anything else that looks like an error in WBFAN I'll be sure to drop you a note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

By hand? Holy crap. I did WBFAN by hand for a while, but decided it was way too much effort. At this point it runs totally automatically. Just FYI, it's two distinct steps. One is to parse the nom log files, looking for promoted articles and who the nom(s) was(were), and add these to the appropriate section of the by-year list (like WP:FA2020). These lists are really never changed except by the bot adding new entries. The other step is to read all the by-year lists and reconstruct the table at WP:WBFAN (from scratch every day). If you're interested, the code that parses the log files is at User:Rick_Bot/scripts/newnoms - it's mostly bash, but the actual parsing is in awk. I think it wouldn't be impossible to modify this code to extract what you're doing by hand. You're certainly welcome to do this on your own if you happen to know awk. If not, I could perhaps take a crack at it - but I don't have a lot of time at the moment so I'm not sure when I might be able to get around to this. My guess is I could do something fairly quickly that would usually work (pre-populate whatever format you're collecting the info in, so the "by hand" step is review and fix what the code misses). The older log files are less regular than the current ones, so there would probably be quite a few mistakes. If you're interested, let me know and I'll see what I might be able to come up with. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's slow! I do it in odd moments; I think I started at least two or three years ago. If you do come up with a script (I haven't written awk for decades so I don't think I'll try it), run it for a month in 2007 and let me have a look; it might be faster. I'm not sure it would, because I track things like whether it's an oppose, a support, or a struck oppose, and so on; and whether the review is for content, sources, or media, so I'd have to check all that no matter how accurate the script is. Plus I don't count incidental edits that aren't part of a review -- e.g. someone tidying up, or a delegate asking a question. I think it'll be another six months to a year of data entry, if I don't get distracted by something else (I haven't been working on it non-stop since I started). I think I put the stats together originally for a few months out of curiosity and then decided to keep on working backwards through the list. One of my motivations was to allow people to see if they were net contributors to reviews, and the only fair way to do that for old-timers is to go all the way back. Plus I've been in scores of conversations about how FAC has changed -- for example, do we oppose less now? -- and I'd rather have data than anecdotal evidence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Death (magazine)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Doctor Death (magazine) 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 SchroCat -- SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Death (magazine)

The article Doctor Death (magazine) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Doctor Death (magazine) 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 SchroCat -- SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020

• Library Card Platform
• New partnerships
  • ProQuest
  • Springer Nature
  • BioOne
  • CEEOL
  • IWA Publishing
  • ICE Publishing
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Infinitysf.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Infinitysf.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 12:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Trout

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

"The PL was formed by the Brotherhood of Professional Base Ball Players in November 1989" [3] you're off by a mere century! Therapyisgood (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Oops! I actually saw that typo and thought I fixed it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Anna Hunger for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anna Hunger 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/Anna Hunger 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) 06:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you today for The Thrill Book, "a missed opportunity; a precursor to the pulp magazines that began to specialize in fantasy and science fiction in the 1920s. It's famous now mostly because of that failure, and since it was never common to begin with its reputation has led to it becoming fabulously rare -- one historian commented that a full run of 16 issues would cost about as much as a luxury car. Despite the fact that it is no longer regarded as an sf and fantasy magazine, its reputation means that it gets quite a bit of coverage in magazine history sources"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have experience in Featured topics? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I've never created one or reviewed one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Aza24 and I want Monteverdi's operas to become one, in memory of Brian who created them all, and was part of making the composer a FA, with Smerus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)