User talk:Mike Christie/Archive10

Disambiguation link notification for December 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ghost Stories (magazine), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carl Jacobi. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Uncanny Tales (Canadian pulp magazine)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Uncanny Tales (Canadian pulp 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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Captain Future (magazine)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Captain Future (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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Happy Holidays
		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 15:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal greetings

	Merry Christmas and best wishes for a happy, healthy and productive 2015!
	Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Uncanny Tales (Canadian pulp magazine)

The article Uncanny Tales (Canadian pulp magazine) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Uncanny Tales (Canadian pulp 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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Captain Future (magazine)

The article Captain Future (magazine) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Captain Future (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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Witch's Tales (magazine)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Witch's Tales (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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dynamic Science Stories

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dynamic Science Stories you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I give up...

See Talk:William the Conqueror and the recent changes ... I guess I don't know anything at all about how a featured article should look. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Never give up! Never surrender!. I'll take a look; I know it's frustrating but the high profile articles you work on are worth a lot to the encyclopedia, and common sense usually wins out. And there are, in the end, a fair number of people around here with common sense. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Witch's Tales (magazine)

The article The Witch's Tales (magazine) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:The Witch's Tales (magazine) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dynamic Science Stories

The article Dynamic Science Stories you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dynamic Science Stories for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

GA nominations

Hi. Thanks for reviewing my GA nominations for 2013 CECAFA Cup and 2012 Kagame Interclub Cup. I think I'll be able to take care of the issues you raised on both articles, but due to my busy schedule I think I'll need more than seven days to try and make both articles GA material. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 14:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Extra time is not a problem; just let me know how it's going and I'm happy to keep them on hold. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I'll definitely work on the articles as soon as I can. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 11:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

England a vassal of the Holy Roman Empire?

I have reverted a statement in England that it was a vassal of the Holy Roman Empire, and then of the Pope. The editor reverted back. So far as I can see there is no source for the first claim, and only early nineteenth century ones for the second - although it is presumably technically correct that King John made England a fief of the Pope. Can you take a look. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I think most historians now would say that John became a vassal of Innocent, not that England became a vassal state of the papacy. But that's off the top of my head. As far as I know, the only way you could possibly arrive at England as a vassal state of the HRE is from Richard I's captivity? And that would be a stretch... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, I've reverted - 1835, 1807 and 1841 sources just will not cut it for that sort of information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it but Ealdgyth is the real expert here. I will comment if it looks like I can be helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth (and Mike). Dudley Miles (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

What???

I review one of your SF articles and you have the 'gall to nominate another! I never!! (heh, all teasing aside, cool. Will try to review eventually. Am trying to review a bit more at FAC this year. Also getting FACs of my own back up... (hint hint) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hah! Actually I have three or four more lined up waiting for FAC, so it's definitely going to happen again! I've been reviewing GAs for a week or two as I had a bunch of GAs of my own and owed some reviews, but when I get back to NY I expect to get some FAC reviewing done and I'll definitely include yours. I read it within a few minutes of nomination and it looks fine but I should go through it again. I'm now trying to review at least five or six FACs every time I nominate, since it takes that many to get promoted; not sure I can keep it up, but we'll see.Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Space Stories

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Space Stories you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Flash Gordon Strange Adventure Magazine

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Flash Gordon Strange Adventure 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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 9

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 9, November-December 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
• New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
• Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Space Stories

The article Space Stories you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Space Stories for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Flash Gordon Strange Adventure Magazine

The article Flash Gordon Strange Adventure Magazine you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Flash Gordon Strange Adventure 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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vargo Statten Science Fiction Magazine

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vargo Statten Science Fiction 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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ghost Stories (magazine)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ghost Stories (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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vargo Statten Science Fiction Magazine

The article Vargo Statten Science Fiction Magazine you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Vargo Statten Science Fiction 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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ghost Stories (magazine)

The article Ghost Stories (magazine) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ghost Stories (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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Mud Creek (Chillisquaque Creek)/GA1

Hi. I've finished fixing the Mud Creek article and responded to your comments at the GA review. It'd be good if you could take another look. Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• Elsevier - science and medicine journals and books
• Royal Society of Chemistry - chemistry journals
• Pelican Books - ebook monographs
• Public Catalogue Foundation- art books

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

-- Signing so this will archive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ancestry of the Godwins

Any feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ancestry of the Godwins/archive1 will be gratefully received. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Strange Stories

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Strange Stories 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 Curly Turkey -- Curly Turkey (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Article reviews?

Hey, Mike. Are you available for three more quick GA reviews? You're familiar with the subject matter (U.S. Olympic medalist swimmers), all three articles are in good shape, and I've tried to incorporate your comments from your previous GA reviews of the Catie Ball and Tracy Caulkins articles. One of the subjects (Dara Torres) has been in the news in the last four years, and the other two are pretty straightforward (Nicole Haislett, Mary Wayte). Given our history, I can't imagine anyone better than you to do these reviews. Please let me know if you have the time in the near term. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I should be able to get to at least one of them in the next few days. I think you nominated three, and so far I only reviewed two, so if the third is still outstanding I can do that too. I have a couple of ongoing reviews I have to finish and one of my articles is under review too, but after that I can get to it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Strange Stories

The article Strange Stories you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Strange Stories 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 Curly Turkey -- Curly Turkey (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Marvel Science Stories

Initialish Half-way-doneish upload

I think I've found a better copy of the lead image. And I do have a fondness for old-school Sci-fi art, as much as I might poke fun of it at times. Watch this space. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be great. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Still not done restoring this, and the colours are more vivid and contrasting on the original, so I'll need to adjust, but... You can see the idea. Stamp is partially removed; I'd suggest we could mock it up for use it in the article once the stamp and tape is gone, with some colour adjustments immediately. Note also that, de to a long-standing bug, PNGs aren't sharpened after thumbnailing, despite a thumbnail process that blurs them, so the thumbnail here will look somewhat blurry fine, as it's JPEG. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, any idea what story that image is for? I've only skimmed the inside (some illustrations, start with the cover, though, I think) but I don't see any obvious connection, unless it's in the details. Magazine's actually pretty thick, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Adam, sorry for the delay in replying; I've been off-wiki for a couple of days. Per this page there are only two stories in the issue, and I don't have either of them so I can't tell. I had a look in a couple of references I have and they don't say which story it is. Artists in those days were pretty liberal about taking a scene from a story and spicing it up, and it's also not unusual for a cover to have nothing to do with any of the stories, so it may not be an illustration of the contents at all.

I'm impressed you have a copy -- I've been a collector for a long time and I've never seen a single issue of the magazine. How did you come across it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

www.abebooks.com - I find all sorts of weird stuff on there. It was only about £10, which, as I don't plan on any other Wikipedia purchases this month, fit my Wikipedia budget and fit in a gap. It's beat up, of course, but that's restorable. I presume you'll want the interior illustrations too? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As you can see, the damage is gradually going away. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, looking good. Thanks for doing this! And yes, any interior illos would be great. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

GA nomination for 2013 CECAFA Cup

Hi. I posted another message on the article's talk page regarding this but I think all the issues you raised have been ironed out sufficiently and it's ready to move to GA-class. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 18:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I've updated my comments there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Marvel Science Stories

Finally done, and nominated. Let me know if you see more I can do on it. Interior art: One of the images is stretched over two pages, but is obviously meant to be one image, despite the guttering between them. Should I reassemble it? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't usually comment at FPC but will take a look. On the interior art, I have seen this done different ways in collections of sf art. In some cases the join is left visible, but usually that's when the entire page layout is reproduced in order to show the story title and blurb and so on. If it's a lot of work, I don't know if you should spend the effort unless it's a well-known illustrator. Who are the artists for the various illos? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring the adverts, it looks like HWESSO for "Tomorrow" and Alex Schomburg for Newscast. Obviously HWESSO is a somewhat stylized signature. It's also the split artwork. Both are quite good, although I suppose the Schomburg being good should be no surprise. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, hey, there's actually a column describing the cover. It's a "Beauty Parlor of the Future" with no apparent actual connection to the stories, although I haven't read "Tomorrow" yet. But there's a column telling a story about it, and you don't put a column in if you're going to write about it in the actual stories. By the way: Newscast is very good. Added a few quotes to the image description page. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

HWESSO is Hans Waldemar Wessolowski, usually known as Wesso. He was fairly popular, and his article is unillustrated at the moment, so it would be good to get that one. Schomburg is also well-known; his article is illustrated but eventually it will be longer and this would be a nice early example of his work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like both are well-worth the little bit of work they'll need. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, looks like it's passing, so it would appear we're going to get Marvel Science Stories a second run on the main page. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Guttering on the Wesso. Proper scan soon.

Here's a sample of the guttering issue on the Wesso. As you can (probably) see, the two images obviously fit without a gap if put together. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It'll be nice to get that. By the way, in case you didn't know, John Taine is a pseudonym for Eric Temple Bell, who was quite a well-known mathematician who didn't want his sf work to be widely known to his professional colleagues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Illustration to Harl Vincent's Newscast in the April-May 1939 issue of Marvel Science Stories. Art by Alex Schomburg.

And here's the Schomburg. Nearly done. Your call as to whether you want to use it in Marvel Science Stories. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Beautiful. There isn't going to be room to use both this and the Wesso in the article, so let's see what the Wesso looks like before deciding which to use. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The Wesso's going to be interesting, I'll tell you that much. Artwise, the guttering should be removed. But that screws up the text columns, unless I crop them out on the right side. Means we're going to get a rather odd sample of text on the left, though, as the first column will be cut off at the bottom, and thus won't flow into the second column.....

Did the Schomburg first for a reason: It's relatively straightforwards. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

How about eliminating the text completely, and just presenting it as artwork? That's commonly one; if we were going to use it in the article about the author I actually think we should leave the guttering in, since as you say it will look weird otherwise. If it's not in an article about the author, there's no need for the text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can't really scan a page division: It won't fit on my scanner. I'll have to play with it and see what I can do. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way...

If you can scan anything at 600dpi, I'll gladly restore it. I do insist on double-checking copyright (I've lost days of work before to having missed something), but otherwise. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a very attractive offer. I would love to get some higher quality images of some of the magazines, though sadly many are still in copyright. Unfortunately all my magazines are in boxes right now and that's not likely to change for months, but when it does I will get back to you. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song) FAC

Hi Mike Christie! After your comment at the first FA nomination for City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song), the article underwent a copyediting treatment and has been improved in the prose area. Would you like to comment at the current nomination? Your help would be very much appreciated.--Earthh (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I had a quick read through of the current state of the nomination, and glanced back at the article; I see Karanacs is opposing. I'd prefer to wait until another editor or two has weighed in; as you know I wasn't convinced that the article was quite there first time round, and I'd like to see some other support coming in before I review it again -- I can only spare the time for a limited number of reviews and would like to look at other articles. If you get another support, please ping me again and I'll see if I can take another look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 9, 2015

A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. I had to squeeze the text down to a little over 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 17:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note -- the summary looks fine to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. - Dank (push to talk) 18:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Precious again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Texas Revolution peer review

Hi Mike. I've just opened a peer review for Texas Revolution as the final step before we try for FA status. I'd very much appreciate your opinion and/or your copyediting skills. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating

A few observations:

• "At about this time Libby read a paper by W. E. Danforth and S. A. Korff, published in 1939 ...". I'm not clear what time that would be.

  The source says "In a 1979 interview, Libby stated that he conceived the idea of ¹⁴
  C dating during World War II after reading a 1939 article ..."; that is, the Korff and Danforth article. The footnote gives the 1979 source as "Interview with Willard F. Libby by Greg Marlowe. American Institute of Physics. New York". I'm guessing that that's just a document held by the institute, not a published paper. Can we just change "At about this time" to "At some time during World War II"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

  I think that would work. Eric Corbett 16:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• "It was this paper that first gave Libby the idea that radiocarbon dating might be possible." Using the word "first" there implies that he had the idea more than once, a second or third time perhaps.

  Yes, I think that should be cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• "... sea organisms have a mass of less than 1% of those on land and are not shown on the diagram." What diagram?

  That's intended to refer to the simplified carbon exchange reservoir diagram in that section. I don't often see a "Figure 1" (etc.) notation in Wikipedia that would allow articles to refer to diagrams, but perhaps that's a solution here?

... more to follow. Eric Corbett 16:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; your copyedits are much appreciated as always. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• "The results were summarized in a paper in Science in 1947, and the authors commented that their results implied it would be possible to date materials containing carbon of organic origin." Presumably they made that comment in the paper, in which case something like "... in which the authors commented ..." would be better.

  I'll check, but a quick look at those references shows that something is out of whack; it looks like some references got moved incorrectly. I'll have to get back to this later; I'll back at the house in two or three or hours. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

  It turns out the references are OK -- I just wasn't seeing the source sentence. I can't access the journal article, but the secondary source says that the comment was made in the paper, so I've changed it per your suggestion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• "For accelerator mass spectrometry, solid targets are used; while these are usually graphite, CO₂ and iron carbide can also be used." In what sense is CO₂ a solid target?

  Fixed; the CO
  ₂ is gaseous. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• " It was quickly apparent that the principles of radiocarbon dating were correct." I'm not certain that principles can be correct can they? Maybe valid?

  Yes, I think "valid" would be better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

  "With the development of AMS in the 1980s it became possible to measure these isotopes precisely enough for them to be the basis of useful dating techniques. They have been primarily applied to dating rocks." That doesn't read quite right to me, as the isotopes haven't been applied to anything.

  I tweaked this to clarify that it's the techniques that were applied. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm done now Mike. It's a very nice piece of work, good luck at FAC. Eric Corbett 19:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks again for the copyedit; I'm always amazed by what you can find that I missed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Mike, you've been here for so long, and you're still doing what all of us ought to be doing--improving articles, improving the project, improving the atmosphere. Truly you are a paragon. Drmies (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try to deserve the praise. I'm glad there are others out there doing the dirty work of reverting vandals, blocking trolls, and closing AfDs; I don't think I'd last very long if I did much of that work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm easily bored, I think. I do wish I was actually working on something, something meaningful. Did you know John Hurt Fisher? I didn't--he left UT long before I got there. Another giant gone, and another instance of giants being difficult to write about: there's not much secondary literature about scholars. I cobbled this together from various emails to the Chaucer list. If you have anything relevant, please add it. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Opinion

As the WP:GAC reviewer, I was hoping you might have an opinion at Talk:Jalen_Brunson#New_main_image.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Mike Christie,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

- signing so this will archive.Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 10

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 10, January-February 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• New donations - ProjectMUSE, Dynamed, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and Women Writers Online
• New TWL coordinator, conference news, and a new guide and template for archivists
• TWL moves into the new Community Engagement department at the WMF, quarterly review

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

C14 dating

Hi Mike. I am reviewing for FL List of scheduled monuments in Sedgemoor at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of scheduled monuments in Sedgemoor/archive1 nominated by Rod. A date of 12,500 BP is given for horse bones in Gough's Old Cave, which I think must be wrong as it is in the Younger Dryas ice age and there is no evidence of human occupation then. The English Heritage source at [1] cites a 1986 paper. Would you agree that C14 dating has moved on so much in the last 30 years that a source that old is not RS? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to dismiss a 1986 date without a later source -- the accuracy available even in the 1970s with the best labs was pretty good, I believe. The calibration might have changed somewhat, but probably not to the extent that it would move the date a thousand years. I looked at a couple of my references; here's what I found. Christopher Smith, Late Stone Age Hunters of the British Isles (1992): supports the 12450 BP date with the statement "we may tentatively conclude that Gough's Cave was occupied during the latter half of the thirteenth millennium BP". Adkins, Adkins & Leitch, Handbook of British Archaeology (2008): describes the remains in the cave as being "of Creswellian" age; it doesn't date the cave in that section but gives the Creswellian as c. 15,500 to 13,800 BP elsewhere. Pettitt & White, The British Palaeolithic (2012) includes the site in the upper palaeolithic, from 14.6 to 11.6 ka BP. There's a specific section on the cave and it mentions "...radiocarbon dates on humanly modified material from the site, the majority of which cluster ~ 14.7 ka BP". They cite Jacobi & Higham, "The early Lateglacial recolonization of Britain: new radiocarbon evidence from Gough's Cave, southwest England", in Quaternary Science Reviews 28: 1895–1913. That's not on JSTOR, unfortunately, but it sounds like the right source. However, I then found this: "... radiocarbon dates on humanly modified material from the site, the majority of which cluster between ca. 12,600–12,300 BP", in "The British Upper Palaeolithic", by Paul Pettitt, in Pollard (ed.) Prehistoric Britain (2008). He cites Jacobi, "The Late Upper Palaeolithic lithic collection from Gough's Cave, Cheddar, Somerset and human use of the cave", in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 70:1–92. Also not on JSTOR.

A relevant comment from the Pettitt about the Younger Dryas is their discussion of faunal remains; they mention a 1986 date of 12.1 to 12.7 ka BP for red deer remains in Elderbush Cave in the Peak District, but add "this measurement was made in the infancy of the Oxford radiocarbon laboratory and may be incorrect", so evidently the source of the date matters. However, they also say "Direct dates on humanly modified bone/antler artefacts clearly establish human presence in Britain during the severe conditions of the Younger Dryas although these are remarkably rare." I would say you're right to be sceptical, but a later source is needed. The Pettitt seems to supply that, but given that Pettitt himself is definite about the 12.6–12.3 ka BP date in the 2008 source I'd really want to look at the underlying papers they cite before I could be definite about it. Both are by Jacobi, so I think if you looked at both you'd be able to tell if Jacobi is reversing himself or if the dates refer to different samples.

Sorry, not a very definite answer! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

English Heritage cites "Gowlett, J, Hedges, R, Law, I, Perry, C, 'Archaeometry' in Radiocarbon Dates From The Oxford AMS System: Archaeometry List 4, , Vol. 28 no.2, (1986), 116-25", which sounds very like the 1986 Oxford laboratory dates which Pettitt and White say are doubtful. In the British Palaeolithic they date the Younger Dryas 12,890 - 11,650 BP, and say p. 497 that cave use probably vanished by the Younger Dryas, and that human occupation may have amounted to a few months towards the end of the period. All this throws great doubt on a 12,500 BP date for horse bone in a cave.

I have just noticed that EH say radiocarbon years. Does that mean uncalibrated and what would the effect be? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that means uncalibrated years. The Handbook gives the Creswellian as 15.4–13.8 ka BP / 13–12 ka bp, with the bp indicating uncalibrated, so there's a substantial offset. That looks like it could explain the dates. I doubt there's a standard on Wikipedia for reporting radiocarbon dates; the academic standards seem excessive for an encyclopedia, and would be incomprehensible to most of our readers anyway. I would think we'd always want to at least include the calibrated dates, regardless of what else is reported, since that's what most people will understand. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

GA reviews

Hey, Mike. I got your talk page message, and I did not want you to think I was ignoring you. I know the primary writer/editor behind the 1921 and 1922 Vandy CFB season articles, and I have helped him with much smaller CFB bio articles in the past. I looked at the two when they were nominated last fall, and having looked at them again, I can guess why other reviewers are avoiding them. They are too long by a factor of two or greater, and the level of detail/trivia defies the basic concept of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Both require a lot of editing, as well as the active cooperation of the principal writer-editor to get them close to encyclopedic articles that satisfy the GA standard, and I' m not sure how my critical comments would be received. The CFB national championship article requires work, too, but I think it is much closer to providing an encyclopedia treatment of its subject. I'll try to take a look at it this coming weekend, and start outlining a plan for a constructive GA review. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: I agree that the 1921 and 1922 articles are longer than I think they need to be, but I'm not sure I could convincingly make that case in a GA review. The GA criteria specify summary style, but I don't think it applies here -- there couldn't be a subarticle for each game. The articles are long, but no longer than many other perfectly good articles. I guess the GA criterion that says "without going into excessive detail" is probably what would apply here. If you're acquainted with the editor in question I can understand you not wanting to do the review, though on the other hand an expert like yourself is exactly the right person to do a review like that. However, it's not a good idea for the first GA review you do, for sure. If you decide to go ahead with the review of the other article, I'd be happy to comment if you would like me to, though I think your attention to detail and knowledge of the subject mean you don't need anyone's input. I guess the only advice I would give is not to go beyond the GA criteria -- I do a lot of FAC reviews and if I weren't careful I'd just point out everything I see, whether it's GA-necessary or not. By the way, do you prefer to be pinged for a conversation like this, or do you watch talk pages when you post to them? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I've had your talk page watch-listed for some time, Mike. All sorts of interesting things to be learned around here. *grin*

I certainly would not mind you looking over my shoulder when I'm doing a GA review, either, and I'm sure the article writer-editor would not mind, either. The more good advice, the better. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Glad to help. Though I know nothing about college football! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, Mike Christie,

The Editing team is asking very experienced editors like you for your help with VisualEditor. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list • Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter • Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Benton Gatch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Bull Run. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A new reference tool

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating

FA at last. Very well done with this article. Aa77zz (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. And thanks again for your help at PR; the FA would have been much more troublesome without your input. I really appreciate it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations! You've worked hard, and it has paid off. You've got a very nice article now. CorinneSD (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! And thank you for all the work you put in copyediting; it made a big difference to the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Well-earned barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your perseverance in bringing Radiocarbon dating to featured article status. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com check-in

Hello Mike Christie,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

• Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
• Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating

Hello, Mike - I was just looking at the latest edit to Radiocarbon dating and skimming the article, and I read the caption in the image of the sheep on the beach in North Ronaldsay, in the section Radiocarbon dating#Isotopic fractionation, and I didn't understand δ13C, so I read the first two paragraphs of that section where it explains what it is. I now understand (generally) what it is, but I don't know how to say it. I even clicked on the link (at the end of the second paragraph in "Isotopic fractionation") and read the article δ13C, but nowhere does it indicate how it is to be said. For the non-expert who doesn't already know, is there any chance you could indicate (at the end of the second paragraph in Radiocarbon dating#Isotopic fractionation and/or in δ13C) how to say it? I figure δ is a Greek lower-case letter, but I don't know which one. CorinneSD (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi -- yes, it's Greek; it's a lower-case delta, and that's how you say it -- delta thirteen cee. I don't think I can add it to the article without a source, but I'll see if I can find one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be all right to add it to the δ13C article. CorinneSD (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. If I do come across a source I'll add it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mike - I'm just wondering whether "fossil forest" needs to be capitalized in this subheading:

Radiocarbon dating#Pleistocene/Holocene boundary in Two Creeks Fossil Forest.

The phrase is in lower case in that section, and is not part of the official name of the location. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It's capitalized in the source, so apparently the source regards it as part of the title of the forest. I can't find much else on the web that discusses this location, so I'm inclined to leave it as the source has it. It's in lower case in the article because it's never used as the name of the location, just as a phrase describing what was found there. Do you think it should be changed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm still puzzled. In that paragraph, the name of the location of the fossil forest is Two Creeks Buried Forest State Natural Area, which even has its own article. Are you saying that another source has "Fossil Forest" even though the official name is "...Buried Forest State Natural Area"? CorinneSD (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The name "Two Creeks Buried Forest State Natural Area" doesn't appear in the source I used (Taylor & Bar-Yosef, Radiocarbon Dating); instead that source uses "Two Creeks Fossil Forest", with that capitalization. I added the "Two Creeks Buried Forest State Natural Area" name to direct readers to the Wikipedia article; I didn't provide a cite for that name because I didn't think it was controversial. The quote in Taylor & Bar-Yosef is "...a locality known as the Two Creeks Fossil Forest". There's also a caption to a photograph in which "Fossil" is capitalized but "forest" is not, which is odd and looks like a copyediting error, though in which direction is hard to tell. I think it's certainly possible that the "Two Creeks Fossil Forest" name is something Taylor and Bar-Yosef used without realizing it wasn't the official name, but since it's the form of the name in the source I'm using, I'm a bit hesitant to change it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand, and thanks for the explanation. It sounds like an intriguing place. CorinneSD (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I saw the sentence you just added:

• Carbon is distributed throughout the atmosphere, the biosphere, and the oceans, and these together are referred to as the carbon exchange reservoir.

Your wording is all right, but What would you say to this re-wording?

• Carbon is distributed throughout the atmosphere, the biosphere, and the oceans, which are collectively referred to as the carbon exchange reservoir.

– CorinneSD (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I like your wording, but I'm reworking that sentence at the moment because of further FAC comments. When I'm done, please go ahead and copyedit as you see fit -- I trust your judgement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you really prefer the adverb "jointly"? What do you think of this wording?

• Carbon is distributed throughout the atmosphere, the biosphere, and the oceans, each of which is referred to as a carbon exchange reservoir and which collectively are referred to as the carbon exchange reservoir. CorinneSD (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  The sources don't explicitly distinguish the two uses; they just use "reservoir" indifferently to mean both the overall system and the individual components. Given that we're doing this definition by observation rather than citing an existing definition, I'm not keen on the emphasized "the". I was trying to find a form of words that made the two uses seem equally valid without stressing either one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh. I understand. How about this?

• Carbon is distributed throughout the atmosphere, biosphere, and oceans, which are referred to both individually and collectively as a carbon exchange reservoir.

I think it is more concise than any of the previous versions. CorinneSD (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Mike Christie Did you see this? CorinneSD (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes -- go ahead with the change; I'm fine with it. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Before I change it, I'd like to ask you whether you might prefer the way it is now. I just looked at it, and I see that it is at the beginning of a section on "carbon exchange reservoir", defining that phrase. (I should have looked at it in context before I started re-wording the sentence.) The sentence as it is now is longer, but it is perhaps clearer for a non-expert than the more concise version I came up with. CorinneSD (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I do marginally prefer it the way it is now, but of course I don't want to act like I own the article, so please change it if you think the new version is an improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Portrait of Monsieur Bertin

Many thanks for the review. The suggestions were very good, and frankly needed :) I dont miss the Denner portrait much, the link was always teneous. Ceoil (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Stephen I of Hungary

Hi Mike. I have commented at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephen I of Hungary/archive2 saying that I think the quotation of primary sources in Stephen I of Hungary is OR, and the nominator disagrees. If you have the time and inclination, could you take a look at it. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look; I have a new article up at FAC so I owe some reviews, so perhaps I'll just review the whole article. Ealdgyth, you're expert on the use of mediaeval sources; do you have time to look at this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm most of the way through a review now, and I think I see what concerned you. In a couple of cases Borsoka might appear to a reader to be using the primary sources as a scholar would: he quotes them in support of his narrative. I read it a little differently: I assumed as I read that it was simply a case of under-citation -- that is, that the secondary sources do support these quotes, but Borsoka hasn't given direct citations for those supporting comments. Where he's quoted the secondary sources in answer to comments at the FAC, though, it does appear the support is there. So I suspect it's OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

He has supplied some secondary sources at FAC, but they should be in the article, and I am not clear how far the secondary sources support the statements in the quotes from primary sources. However, one editor doubtful about OR should not prevent the article passing if other editors are happy. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ancestry of the Godwins

Hi Mike. Any chance you can review Ancestry of the Godwins at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ancestry of the Godwins/archive1? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd enjoy reviewing it, but what I usually do is to pick the oldest review without sufficient reviews to be promoted, and work my way up the list from the bottom. Would it be OK if I waited a couple of weeks to see if you get the reviews you need? You have a couple of supports, so there's no risk it will get archived in the next two or three weeks. If it's still sitting at two reviews after a month, I'll be glad to take a look if I haven't already gotten to it. I do it that way to try to make sure no FAC fails for lack of reviews, which is frustrating for the nominator. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 11

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 11, March-April 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
• New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
• Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Fetch me

I've replied to your page-creation bug with the next step, but I want to add: Come get me on my talk page when you encounter work-stopping problems. Send me e-mail. Ping me in GChat. Ask someone in #mediawiki-visualeditor ^connect to track me down. I would have cheerfully escaped yesterday's Meeting That Would Not Die to talk to you. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hah. I've been in meetings like that. I will email you if something is urgent, but it never really is urgent; this is a hobby, after all. While you're here, how about that weird bug I posted a couple of weeks ago? I haven't posted anything in Phabricator because I can't quite figure out what to say is the bug, but there's no way that that's designed behaviour. And related to that, I am starting to think that the long-standing resistance to a link dialog that shows both display text and link target may be misplaced; NicoV seems to be finding multiple cases where it appears the current interface design is not succeeding in letting users what they're doing to the link. If I get time I'll try to put some comments together on the topic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of those meetings on my calendar at the moment.

I'm behind on filing VEF bugs at the moment. In fact, the reason I dropped by now is to find out whether the page creation problem is still happening. I'm not sure what to make of it.

On the question of links, it turns out that user research proves that what we've got is distinctly suboptimal. New users (probably non-editors recruited from a place like usertesting.com) either couldn't make a link at all, or after they did, weren't sure that it worked. So it's up for radical redesign, and perhaps we'll get a two-field approach. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that that dialog is getting reworked. Are you familiar with the gmail interface for inserting hyperlinks? It operates using Ctrl-K, just like VE, and it has two fields, and also leaves the link unselected on exit. Typing "This is a Ctrl-K link" does something very interesting: it puts "link" in both the target and display fields, so each keystroke goes in both fields simultaneously. I think this is a great model for us. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I <3 the Gmail interface for links. That's what I personally want here. James F insists that user testing found the opposite result about de-selecting upon completion, but I will ask him to take another look at it, as part of their plan to blow it all up and start over anyway.

When you have a moment, could you please blank your common.js and vector.js pages, and see if you still can't create new articles from redlinks? I copied it all over to my account and it worked fine, but I was testing in Safari on a Mac, which might not have the same effects. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 06:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I've disabled my extensions and all gadgets again and now can't reproduce the problem, but as I recall from last time it took a while to reappear. I'll do some editing this evening and see if it happens again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Any further problems? There's a suggestion about how to get more information in the bug at phab:T96115. If it's all cleared up though, then it might have been coincidentally fixed through some of the other work. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It's still happening, but intermittently. I'll try those suggestions but am a bit busy in real life at the moment so it might be a week or two. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

GA review: checking for copyright issues?

Mike, I've agreed to do the GA review for Talk:Vratislav Lokvenc/GA1. I've put together a little team to help me (Gerda Arendt to check the German footnote sources, GiantSnowman to check the football references and terminology -- still recruiting someone to czech the Czech footnote sources). I see that I am supposed to check for potential copyvio problems -- what's the best way to do that? I understand that we have online software for that, right? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

There are tools, but I rarely use them. You can find at least some of them by googling "wikipedia copyvio tools". Typically what I do is spotcheck a few of the references, if I have access to the sources; I check the source for a given sentence in the article and make sure that the supporting text isn't just copied into the article, or closely paraphrased. Sometimes I will take a short sequence of words that looks to me like it could have been in a source and google for that exact phrase, in quotes, to make sure that it's not taken from somewhere else. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so there's no formal, required process for checking for copyvio? Use common sense, spot check sources, and Google anything that sounds as if it's quoted, professionally written, out of character, or stylistically different from the rest of the Wikipedia article? About right? I'll try out one of the Wikipedia copyvio tools, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that's the way I see it. I have occasionally used the tools and I seem to recall some of them can be helpful, but they have limitations. Let me know what you think of them; perhaps they've improved since I last used them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do, sir. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Ping

Hi Mike,

I don’t know how closely you’ve followed the research project about VisualEditor, but since they’ll be moving into the data analysis phase before long, I wanted to personally ask a few “regulars” at WP:VEF to let me know if they’d seen anything unusual during the last week or two. (You’re in the top 10 all-time editors at WP:VEF, if you exclude inactive editors and staff.) Anyway, if you’ve seen anything or have any thoughts on it, then please let me know. There’s a thread open at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#Test feedback if you want, or you can always leave a note at my talk page or send me e-mail. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I did notice it, but for various real-life reasons I've not been very active the last month or so. (One reason is that I'm selling off a large part of my library on eBay, and it's time-consuming to do the data entry.) I will keep an eye open but I haven't seen anything odd. I've noticed miscellaneous improvements in the interface, which has been nice to see. One thing I did notice -- not a bug, more of a functionality question -- is that it doesn't seem possible to change the image file pointed to once you've created it. I cut and pasted an image to another location in an article, thinking I'd just repoint it to the new image file I wanted to use, and was surprised to find I couldn't. Did I miss something or is that really not possible? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It should be possible: Open the image (as if you were going to change the caption, and click the "Change image" button in the lower left corner. It worked for me just now (Safari/Mac, and with almost nothing else on the page). Could you try it out again, and let me know if we need to file another bug? There's no rush, just whenever you have time. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Guess I missed that; my bad. I must have been looking only at the controls at the top of the dialog. It's obvious enough now you point it out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

PR request

Hello. I noticed your name on the list of prolific FA writers, and I wondered if you would be interested in taking a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Chetro Ketl/archive1. Thanks! RO^(talk) 20:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a subject I'd love to review, but unfortunately I'm a bit busy in real life at the moment, and with what time I have I need to get some FAC reviews done as I owe a few. Thanks for letting me know about it, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

The Wikipedia Library

Call for Volunteers

The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:

• Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
• Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
• Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
• Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.

Sign up to help here :)

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Ace Books FAR

I have nominated Ace Books for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Crispulop (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 30, 2015

Mike, a summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. I used all of your lead, and then some. - Dank (push to talk) 02:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; and the change you made to the lead looks good to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Good to see/read today, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Today's FA

The article is a Fantastic job in every sense of the word. Thank you for all of your efforts. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! The old pulps aren't to everyone's taste, but I do like those covers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I've been reading my share of old pulps lately, albeit a different genre (per my comments here). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Phil Stephenson-Payne's project is an incredible effort. I've sent him a few cover images he didn't have and I agree that the project deserves more publicity. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

A request

Hi, Mike, it's good to see you fully active at FAC again, and I am getting some pleasure reading your articles as I trawl for likely TFAs. My particular reason for contacting you now is to ask if you could look at my current FAC offering, The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold? The reason I ask is that you have more book-type featured articles to your credit than any current editor, and I would greatly value your opinion on this effort. Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually reading one of Waugh's books at the moment: Ninety-two Days. I haven't read Pinfold, though I do have a copy around here somewhere. I'd be glad to take a look. I'm busier than usual in real life but will try to find some time, perhaps over the July 4th weekend coming up. Thanks for the note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Another request

Hey Mike, since I often see your name at FAC, I thought to give you a call on Kill 'Em All. It would be great if you do an image & source review, or post some other comments at the nomination page. If you're busy at the moment, please notify me so I can contact another editor to do these duties. Appreciate your time.--Retrohead (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi -- I am busy in real life, so I'd recommend you do contact someone else -- I have two obligations queued up already that I haven't been able to get to yet. I'll look at if I have time, but I'm afraid I can't promise anything. Good luck with the FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand fully. Fine, if you get the chance to look, otherwise no worries. Brianboulton (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Startling Stories 1944 Fall cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Startling Stories 1944 Fall cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Startling Stories 1946 Winter cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Startling Stories 1946 Winter cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Startling Stories 1950 Jul cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Startling Stories 1950 Jul cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Startling Stories 1950 Mar cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Startling Stories 1950 Mar cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating

I was planning to nominate this for TFA but I put it off as you have one on 30 June, but I see that Brian Boulton has nominated Radiocarbon dating for 8 July. So you have two in just over a week! Dudley Miles (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, fame. I'm not usually too concerned about whether my articles make it to the front page, but it will be nice to see radiocarbon dating there -- it's easily the most significant article I've worked on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It is nice t see it there! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations, Mike, on getting Radiocarbon dating to Featured article status. It's really an excellent article. CorinneSD (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! And thanks again for your help with it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Pinfold

Just to thany you for sending me the NYT review. I have incorporated its essence into the article. Brianboulton (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Glad to be able to help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 12

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
• Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
• Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
• American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco

Read the full newsletter

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor problems

Is VisualEditor still crashing when you try to create a new page? Our last theory was that the process might be something like going to a red link like randomgarbage, and then trying to "Create" the page in VisualEditor. The bugwrangler is hoping that you can try out his debugging suggestions at phab:T96115 – assuming, of course, that you can get it to crash, because we never did figure out how to reliably reproduce the problem in the first place. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I've tried a couple of times and am no longer able to reproduce the problem, so I think we might as well close the bug report. It's likely that the problem, whatever it was, has been fixed by the other changes that have been made. I'll report it again if it happens again. Thanks for following up on it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Opera Quarterly

Hey Mike, I saw that in your application for WP:OUP you mentioned access to Opera Quarterly. That journal isn't included in our OUP partnership, but it is partially accessible through WP:Project MUSE - you may want to apply there as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks -- I'll take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Malvern Hill FAC

Hello,

I've just renominated Battle of Malvern Hill for FAC. You commented last time. Mind taking a look again. It's been through a copyedit and an A-Class review over at the Military History WikiProject. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Will do; if I haven't posted by the end of the weekend, remind me again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 14:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Joan Sargent for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joan Sargent 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/Joan Sargent until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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) 22:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Academic urban legends

Read this and thought of you. Think you'll like it! Protonk (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Outstanding. Thank you. I may put a permanent link to that on my user page. The topic is so relevant to Wikipedian's understanding of when to cite that I think you should post a note somewhere like the village pump, or at least on one of the relevant policy talk pages, such as WT:V. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Left a note on WT:V. Not exactly sure where it will fit in, so I asked the room, as it were. Protonk (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting your review of the Wiki Education handbook on writing biography articles

Hello! I work with the non-profit Wiki Education Foundation. We're creating a handbook for student editors in higher ed who are assigned to write biographies on Wikipedia. I hoped you might be willing to spare some time to review the text of that brochure and offer comments on its Talk page? You can find it here. Thanks in advance! Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but I don't do much with biographies so I may not have much to say. I think there's a biography WikiProject, though I don't know how active it is; you might ask for input there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Appreciated. I've been in touch with them, as well. Thanks! Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

About changing local BC/AD to International BCE/CE (Before common/current/Christian era and Common/Current/Christian era)

You just need to check the Common era for more precise information on how important is the use of BCE/CE standard (more secular) in scientific notations rather than BC/AD. Frozenprakash (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating

I am reading Andrew Lawson's Chalkland, about Stonehenge and its region, and he has an interesting comment on reporting C14 dates on p. 10. "To be strictly accurate when citing a radiocarbon determination, it is necessary to quote various important details from the laboratory report, not least the span of the estimate and the degree of probability. However...for the sake of simplicity in this book I have applied my own judgment and use approximate dates based on the calibrated laboratory determinations. For example, instead of saying 'using OxCal (v3.10: Bronk Ramsey 2001) and data from IntCal04 (Reimer et al 2004) and applying a Bayesian statistical framework, there is a 95% probability that the site was constructed between 2,580-2,470calBC', I would say that 'it was probably built about 2,500 BC."

Is this worth quoting as an illustration of the problems of explaining C14 dates for non-specialist readers? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly indicative, but as you say it's an illustration, not a statement that this is a general problem. If we can find a source to support the statement that 14C dates are difficult to give in a form that is both technically accurate and easy for lay readers to understand, then it would be a good example. I'll have a look in Taylor & Bar-Yosef when I get a chance -- there might be something like that in there.

Still planning to look at the MIS article; I've been unexpectedly busy -- I sell books in my spare time and have had some huge orders come in over the last couple of days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating

Hello, Mike - I'm just re-reading Radiocarbon dating. I'm wondering what you think of a minor word change in the following sentence at the end of the second paragraph in the lead:

• Conversely, nuclear testing increased the amount of 14C in the atmosphere, to a maximum (reached in 1963) of almost twice what it had been before the testing began.

I'd like to substitute the word "attaining" for "to" after "atmosphere". It would then read:

• Conversely, nuclear testing increased the amount of 14C in the atmosphere, attaining a maximum (reached in 1963) of almost twice what it had been before the testing began.

I think the "to" is rather abrupt, and doesn't convey enough. It is, of course, up to you. Corinne (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

If you prefer "to", I would remove the comma just before it so it's more connected to the verb "increased". Corinne (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. I think "attaining" is a definite improvement; go ahead. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I made the change from "to" to "attaining", but now I'm wondering whether you need "reaching" at all since "reaching" and "attaining" are nearly synonyms. If you agree, you could just remove "reaching" and leave "(in 1963)" where it is, or you could remove the parentheses and put "in 1963" right after "attaining". Or you could use "reaching" instead of "attaining". Corinne (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "reaching" is redundant now that we have "attaining". I made it "which attained" in order to make it clearer that it's the amount of 14C that is the subject of attained; I think that otherwise "nuclear testing" might appear to be the subject at first glance. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I think "which attained" creates ambiguity since it follows the singular noun "atmosphere"; it could refer to "atmosphere", "14C" and "nuclear testing". I think the clearest is to use the participle (-ing form), and I think "reaching" is better here:

Conversely, nuclear testing increased the amount of 14C in the atmosphere, reaching a maximum (reached in 1963) of almost twice what it had been before the testing began.

I think it is clear that it is "the amount of 14C" that is the subject of "reaching". I am sorry I didn't figure out this wording earlier. I don't think "in 1963" has to be in parentheses, either:

Conversely, nuclear testing increased the amount of 14C in the atmosphere, reaching a maximum in 1963 of almost twice what it had been before the testing began. – Corinne (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I slightly prefer "which reached", but your version is OK if you don't like "which reached". I think "reaching" can't grammatically refer to the object of "increased", can it? I agree with you that the reader figures it out unconsciously, but I suspect it's technically wrong, though it's a minor point. Yes, "which reached" doesn't make it clear which noun phrase it refers to, because the noun phrase "the amount of 14C in the atmosphere" contains another noun, "the atmosphere", but I think that's normal and the reader is expected to work it out. But I'm not certain enough to insist on one version over the other. In any case, either version is an improvement over what was there before. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Marine isotope stage

Marine isotope stage has two sets of MIS dates, an older and newer version. However the new dating looks to me as if it is just taken from a listing which uses uncalibrated dates - it puts the end of the Younger Dryas at 14kya. I think it should therefore be deleted. Do you agree? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I should have time to look at this in the morning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it must be, though it's odd because nearly all the dates in the source are too old for radiocarbon dating so you would think there would be an explanation of the dating method. It's a pity to delete the whole series when the rest of the data can't possibly suffer from the same error, but without being clear what she means by a date I think that's better than leaving them in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

MIS

Thanks for your help with Æthelwulf. Did you get my email of 9 September on MIS? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I did; I've been meaning to reply but have been backed up in real life. It was too complicated for a quick reply. I'll try to look at it tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem - when you have time. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your wise input, I will take your words to heart and be more verbose and thoughtful in future FAC comments. Though I may still take some time on my own to look over candidates in the list first, I'll certainly try my best to give some more depth to my suggestions and try to provide helpful recommendations to the nominators.

Thanks again,

— Cirt (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The Lug

BTW someone created Louis Silberkleit. I know you were excited to tackle that so I figured I'd let you know. Protonk (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 13

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
• Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
• Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
• Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Would you be up for another FAC?

I really appreciated your efforts on the AI Mk. IV article. Whereas most comments were dotting the i's, yours truly improved the resulting article - it's certainly more logical and easy to read. Would you have the time (and interest) in doing the same for the AI Mk. VIII radar article? It's also long and, IMHO, an interesting story, but I'm finding it difficult to gather comments for any longer article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Yes, I'd be glad to take a look; I enjoyed reviewing the article and would like to read the next part of the story. I'm fairly busy in real life but should be able to get to it in a week or so; might take me a while to get through the whole article. Do you want me to review it as I would for FAC? Or is there something specific you would like me to focus on? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh geez, sorry Mike I totally lost the topic here. I found your review of the original article most useful because it wasn't simple focused on the dotting-the-eyes, but took a larger view of the structure as a whole. I took those suggestions to heart and made a number of changes to this article to reflect that. So I'm most interested in the same sort of high-level review. You can attack the lower-level stuff if you wish, or leave it to the reviewers at the FA, these sorts of details seem to be caught there. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries -- glad you took your time getting back to me because I've been busy in real life. Big install at work this weekend, plus I sell books online and one guy ordered about 300 in six batches over the last three weeks, so I had plenty of wrapping to do. I will try to take a look this week -- I did do a read-through last week and found it interesting. I didn't see anything major to comment on but I think I'm going to read the Mk. IV article again first and then the Mk. VIII one.

Do you have an overarching structure of AI articles in your head, or already partly written? Just curious; seems like there's a lot of background and context here that could probably lead to several more articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, but for reasons that are not entirely clear, it's more difficult to find good information on the later models. I definitely want to do the AI.17 and .18, but I'm still working on my series of US ABM projects... any interest in that field? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I finally got around to working in your suggestions. There's one left dangling and one question, but all the rest are in. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I saw the edits; I should have time to take another look this weekend, if not before. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Flash Gordon Magazine

I saw you reverted my edit to Flash Gordon Strange Adventure Magazine, because it is not a "comic". You're right, but all comics publications are categorized by year at the moment. That's what the name of the category refers to: "comics", the plural (it has recently even been changed from "comic" to "comics" to avoid such misconceptions). Since "Flash Gordon" is a comics magazine it also fits in the "1936 comics debuts" and "1936 comics endings" categories, which refer to any publications in the field of comics that happened that particular year. - User:Knudde Kjell, October 19, 2015 (17:03)

Hi -- thanks for the note. I can see it might be considered comics related, but it was a straight fiction magazine, with (as far as I can tell) no comics in it at all. If you feel that still qualifies for the comics categories, please go ahead -- I'm not familiar with those categories so I'll trust your judgement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Ace titles in A series

The article List of Ace titles in A series has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Why do we have a list of books (reprints, not important first editions which were with other publishers or in other series) in one series by one publisher? Fails WP:N. We don't have catalogues of all books published by other publishers, no reason to make an exception for Ace.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi -- yes, I think this can go. If you look in Ace Books you'll see links to other similar lists; I think those should probably go too. I created these very early in my Wikipedia career and would not do so now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Sledd FAC

Mike, I finally decided it was time to take the plunge with the Andrew Sledd article, and I have nominated it as a Feature Article candidate. Please let me know what I else I should be doing while it is pending. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi -- glad to see this! I will take another look at the article in case I can think of any other comments to make, but I'm sure I shall be supporting. If you have any questions about the process, let me know. Mainly you just have to wait for reviews; it's not unusual to go two or three weeks with no comments, and in some cases you can go two months and not draw enough reviews for promotion, in which case you just have to try again. So patience is the watchword. I'll keep an eye on the FAC and help if I can. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. I'm updating the retrieval dates for the online footnotes, and have found four or five dead links. To the extent possible, I'm inserting the archived versions by the Wayback Machine, but I may have to replace a couple with new sources. The link-rot surprisingly is not that bad, given that I haven't updated them since January 2011. Any helpful comments or suggestions -- or timely explanation of the process -- would be greatly appreciated. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Mike, what is the process from here? Are we just waiting on additional editors to comment? Is there a set number or set time? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we're just waiting. The coordinators will promote when there's a consensus and an image and source check have been done. There's no hard and fast rule, but typically three clear supports with no objections is good enough. If the nomination doesn't draw enough reviews, eventually it will be archived instead of promoted; after two weeks the article can be renominated. Usually they'll let an article go for at least six weeks before archiving it for lack of reviews. So just keep an eye on it, make sure any comments are responded to, and wait. Work on the next article you're going to nominate while you wait! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Will do. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 14

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 14, October-November 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - Gale, Brill, plus Finnish and Farsi resources
• Open Access Week recap, and DOIs, Wikipedia, and scholarly citations
• Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref - a citation drive for librarians

Read the full newsletter

The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Sledd

Tim Riley just pinged me that the Andrew Sledd article has been promoted to Feature Article. It was a much improved article for your review and wordsmithing, and I look forward to our next GA/FA collaboration in the new year. Thank you once again for periodically poking me to go through the FA process -- I probably would not have done so without your prodding. Best wishes for a Merry Christmas. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations! FAC can be a struggle, but it's usually not too bad if you've done the necessary work ahead of time, as you had. I look forward to seeing the article on the main page. How about going for a featured topic on University of Florida presidents? Or on UF sports?

I should be able to help with a review in the New Year; I'm rather busy off-wiki these days so may not be able to respond quickly, but if that's OK then let me know if you've got something you'd like me to look at. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. It helps when you have a good subject for which there exists a great deal of contemporary news coverage as well as academic secondary sources. Makes online research easier and the writing fun. Completely by accident, I was also very fortunate to have a good team of reviewers for the Sledd article's peer reviews and the Good Article review, all of whom took an interest in the subject before it reached FAC. Several of the other University of Florida presidents have that sort of depth of solid coverage (Albert A. Murphree, John J. Tigert, Robert Q. Marston, and maybe John S. Allen and Stephen C. O'Connell, too); most of the others do not. That said, I think all 16 of the presidents have more than enough coverage to finish building them out for Good Articles (I already did so for four of them). If I were going to target the next one to prepare for FAC, it would be Tigert; Farr, Allen, O'Connell, York and Criser would relatively easy pushes to GA. The rest would require substantially more work before GA review. I have another Olympic swimmer GA pending (Aussie Duncan Armstrong); if you have time to take a look in January, it should be a quick GA review if I spend some more time with it between now and New Year's. In any event, I appreciate your interest and your help. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It's that season again...

		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 17:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Enjoy the season, horse and bishop person; and may your 2016 likewise be productive and without frustrations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Warmest Wishes for Health, Wealth and Wisdom through the Holidays and the Coming Year! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

And to you. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 15

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 15, December-January 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

• New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
• #1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
• New branches and coordinators

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Æthelberht of Kent

If I did the math right (please check), we are approaching the 1400th anniversary of Æthelberht's death. What do you think of this nomination to place his article on the Main Page? Jonathunder (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy for it to be nominated, and I'd support it. Thanks. I think I should probably run through the article first to make sure there's been no decay since it was promoted, though. That reference to Chalcedonian Christianity looks unfamiliar, and anachronistic -- Ealdgyth, isn't that an unnecessary reference? For those dates "Christianity" is all that's needed, except in contexts that require a distinction between the Celtic and Roman Churches, surely? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I removed "Chalcedonian" from the nomination as it's too specific for a 1200-character blurb in any case. Jonathunder (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

OK. I should have time to look over the article this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

We have an editor putting in "Chalcedonian" in religion for pre-1054 people - see [[2]] for some of it. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll remove the "Chalcedonian" modifier now. Jonathunder, I'll review the rest of the article this evening, most likely. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It's listed now at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Jonathunder (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Precious again, your Anglo-Saxon king Æthelberht of Kent!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Byzantine Art History

Hi Mike, I'm teaching a class on Byzantine Art History that will have a Wikipedia assignment component and wondered if you'd be willing to be the Online Ambassador? Your background in medieval history made me think you might be a good fit. Thanks, Anne

Signing so this will archive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Have you seen this?

A full run of If (magazine) (which you wrote!) is now up at the Internet Archive. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Some of them could probably be uploaded to Commons. Hint, hint. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hadn't seen that; thanks for the pointer! I'm surprised, though; I can't see how they can be out of copyright. If so, yes, they should be uploaded to commons, or at a minimum the covers and interior illustrations should be. Won't be done by me, though, or at least not this year. I don't have much time to edit at all this year, and don't expect to until at least the summer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't find a copyright notice on there, so I'm not sure what the status is. I hope RL is going well, despite being busy! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes -- I'm just busy because I'm selling about five thousand of my books on eBay, which is time consuming. Been at it since March; about half done. When they're gone I should be back editing again. Hope you're well too.

If I get a moment I will see if I can look into the copyright. I think I did back when I wrote the article and found they were still protected, but I'll see what I can find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

5000? Is that all? :-)

It looks like you uploaded one of the pre-1964 covers as PD, so there's hope at least. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Small Island Developing States

Hi Mike

You reverted my addition of Guyana to the category Small Island Developing States, I understand why you did this but confusingly Guyana is actually part of the SIDS group, you can find out more information here, I've added it back into the category.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow. That's odd. Thanks for letting me know, and I apologize for the undo. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem :), its not exactly the most accurate name........ John Cummings (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

My apologies

Hello, I am from the talk page of Final Fantasy Type-0. Sometimes I get carried away, and this particular group was being especially difficult. I didn't want to give into their trifle demands and put too much effort countering what should be a clear case of product advertisement, among other very serious issues with that article and the people (and some admins) involved with this subject. The discussion was also covering a much deeper topic of journalistic fraud, real commercial interests, and many other things which have been going on for quite some time. I didn't recognize you as someone who wasn't a part of the circle of people I was dealing with. Again I apologize. I also have a disability, which makes things difficult for me to express, which is why I put so many edits to clarify my statements. Typically you will see the edit history in talk filled with minor edits from me. This is not deliberate. Writing is very tedious for me. The entire discussion was taken down before I had a chance to correct things, but in order to understand the nature of the situation you probably would have to read the entire discussion. There are some legitimate concerns which need to be addressed here, which may be difficult because many things follow within the scope of policy, who are also being devious under the protection of policy, but none-the-less are serious issues which effect Wikipedia and the internet. As far as being a featured article (you mentioned you were from FAC?) yes, there very well may be grounds for removing it. Please read the conversation and excuse my questionable attitude within that conversation. Thanks. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I've no formal association with FAC, but I was one of the FAC reviewers for this article. I think the main thing for now, as it usually is on Wikipedia, is sources for what you're saying. Can you give me a link to something I can read that supports what you're saying about this game? That would be something we could work with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I can literally spend days reading from your user page. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 06:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Vikings tv series

What do you mean not suffientally notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.26.21 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

If a good quality source about Egbert (not about the TV series) mentions the depiction, that would make it notable for inclusion in Egbert's article. There are probably hundreds of depictions of Egbert in books and on screeen over the last two hundred years. Not all of them are worth mentioning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 16

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

• New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
• Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
• A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
• Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

SF vs. sf

You reverted my effort to avoid jargon, noting that, inter alia, "some variation is necessary to avoid it sounding repetitious". I understand where you're coming from, and suggest capitalizing the abbreviation (which otherwise looks rather like a typo) as reasonable middle ground. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi -- I can see your point, but let me try defending "sf" by saying that it's the preferred abbrevation in the online science fiction encyclopedia. You won't be surprised to hear it's my own preference, but if others truly feel it's hard to read and understand even when introduced at the top of the article, I'll go along. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Anthony Anderson FA nomination

I have nominated the Anthony Anderson (basketball) article to possibly have it be promoted to a featured article. Could you please leave some comments on areas that you would want to fix so that it meets the FA criteria? If so, add your opinion on the article on the nomination page. TempleM (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not very active at the moment, and I don't think I'll have time to review it, I'm afraid. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 14, 2016

Hi Mike, I'll start work on this one today. You nominated the article at WP:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

English Benedictine Reform

I have English Benedictine Reform at PR. Comments gratefully received. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)