User talk:Mike Christie/Archive08

Citation from Tuck in Amazing Stories article
Hello, Im reviewing the italian translation of Amazing Stories article on it.wiki, so Im checking the sources referecence. There is a reference listed in the Notes section as 'Tuck, "Amazing Stories", p. 535', but I cannot find any reference to this book in the References section, can you help me ?--Moroboshi (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added the reference to the article. Thanks for catching that -- I went back and checked the old version, and the omission was missed in the FAC review.  Let me know if you have any other questions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Have a nice holiday, Mike. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- and the same to you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Have a great holiday! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

A large scale student assignment.
Mike,

I've expanded the stats that WP:MED collected on a large psychology student assignment HERE and used them to write an essay: User:Colin/A large scale student assignment – what could possibly go wrong?. I'd value your opinion. You can use the essay talk page if you like. Colin°Talk 22:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That link to a picture of you on your userpage is a deadlink
Thought you'd want to know. --199.233.142.10 (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for letting me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

FAC pingie
eeek, seeing the above post, I need to get in there and help, but I had a rough IRL December. Anyway, since you've always been the best at managing RFCs if one was ever needed (ie, let discussions run long enough to detemine if there are any issues to be put forward in an RFC), I wanted to point you to Wikipedia talk:FAC. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi -- I'll comment there too, but this is just a note to say I'm willing to help manage an RfC if one is needed. (Not sure how I got such a good reputation with you for that, but thanks for the compliment.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! You're not only good at determining if one's needed, but what the questions are and that ample discussion has first fleshed them all out.  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I may have to blush. Actually, I don't think I will comment at WT:FAC -- if there is some organizational work to do in managing discussion, I'd rather not have contributed, though I suppose over the years I've commented extensively enough at FAC that someone could figure out my opinions on most of these issues fairly easily.
 * I'll keep an eye on that discussion, and if you want to suggest me as a discussion coordinator who can try to distill the discussion into something that would be profitable to RfC, please do so -- or if you think I should chime in and suggest that, that's fine too. I'm actually fairly busy in RL at the moment; a friend and I are launching a web startup, and since I can't afford to give up my real job I am contributing what I can to that effort with the time I used to use to edit Wikipedia.  I'll have time for this if necessary, though.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to apologize again for asking you to sign on to what became quite a task-- had I known, I would have hesitated to ask you to commit so much time. Thank you again for all your work, all the best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'm happy to help.  I didn't want to be too effusive at WT:FAC, for fear of appearing non-neutral, but I hope you understand how highly I and many others value the enormous amount of work you've done over the last four years.  I don't think it's possible for anyone who is not a regular at FAC to truly understand either the amount of work involved in what you do, or just how difficult the job is.  Thanks again; and I hope we are as lucky with the next delegate (or whatever the structure turns out to be) as we were when you took the job on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, some lucky person is going to find out that it's all work, mostly grunt work, with the reward of daily pokes in the eye with a stick, very few others help "clerk" (update the urgents, check FACs to make sure image and sources are reviewed, so on), and the "power" some are after resides in the "Oppose" button-- that's where FACs are improved and FAs are produced. I do appreciate your kind words. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Given how badly train-wrecked this discussion has become, I'll add my voice to Sandy's in wishing you the best of luck keeping the next RFC from blowing up too. In the meantime, I'm soliciting input (privately, by email) from the current delegates (Sandy and Karanacs included) on how we should proceed from here. Raul654 (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm in the middle of writing up some notes offwiki now, to clarify my thoughts on the situation so far, and would appreciate any comments you or anyone else might have.  I think it would be best if I avoided private communication while I have the RfC baton, just to avoid any appearance of impropriety, but I would be glad of input. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The 17 questions you posted on WT:FAC were helpful in organizing the discussion there and I think the RFC would be best served by organizing it along similar lines. And at the risk of making a self-serving comment, I'd like to avoid breathing any more life into TCO's let's-elect-the-director campaign. The naked politiking it encouraged has been unseemly and divisive, and I think the flop that was TCO's RFC should close the book on that suggestion. Raul654 (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If, as seems likely, the consensus tomorrow night (when I plan to close the straw poll) is for some discussion of the leadership structure, I think the hard part is going to be determining the set of questions to be asked; it's hard because of the dependencies. For example, any RfC that implies an election (whether one time, or regular) for the post of FA director brings many more questions with it -- timing, how they're run, frequency, recalls.  I'm currently thinking that there's a natural hierarchy that we should proceed down.  We might start with the question of whether the post as currently constituted is OK as it is with no changes, and then a yes vote on that would render many of the other questions unnecessary.  The question of periodic reconfirmation might come up too -- that could perhaps be framed as different to elections, but one could also argue that there's no way to say one won't do periodic reconfirmations, because someone can always start an RfC on that topic if they want to.  Anyway, it remains to be seen if others will comment, so I don't want to jump the gun and assume that will be the topic.
 * One thing that would probably be useful would be a clear statement of the FA director role. I've been around here for a while and I think I could probably write one myself, but it might be better if you did.  Is that something you could put together? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's a concise job description for the position of FA director:

The featured article director is the person whose job it is to: To that end, the featured article director is responsible for refereeing FAC and FAR discussions, for interpreting Wikipedia and FA policies as they apply to such nominations, and for deciding which objections are valid/invalid and actionable/inactionable. The featured article director is responsible for, in conjunction with the community, defining FA policies and processes. (By "in conjunction with" I'm being deliberately vague here because there's no single model for how that works. Most of it is done by discussion, but some of it by my own initiative) The featured article director may choose to share some or all of these jobs with people whose judgement he trusts - the delegates.
 * promote and demote featured articles, and maintain the definitive list of which articles have featured status
 * select featured articles that will appear on the main page
 * write up the blurbs for the featured articles appearing on the main page

Now given all the recent discussion about changing how the position operates, it's worth pointing out that the above description is normative, not prescriptive. That is to say, it is not a description of what I or anyone else thinks the job should entail; it's a description of what it actually entails on a day-to-day basis. Raul654 (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I think that's going to be very helpful. One grammar nit: you switch from "responsible for" to "responsible ... to" in the "To that end" sentence; I take it that should be recast slightly? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC to have an RFC to have an election?
I think it is pretty evident that some people voting against having an RFC at all, were voting that way, because the planned to vot in opposition of change. IOW, to attempt to stifle the discussion at its source. I'm not sure how you manage that...but I think you should think about it.TCO (Reviews needed) 19:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think I can take motivation into account in that way; I have to go by the vote. However, I feel an RfC is warranted, so perhaps it's moot. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the first comment  I  have made anywhere on  this topic although  I  have been following  it very  closely. In  view of recent  events that  may  or may  not  have focussed on  various editors who  may  or may  not  be closely  associated with  the Featured Article process, its leadership, management, coordination, article evaluation and assessment, I very firmly  believe that an RfC is needed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I know you worked hard to put all that together, Mike. Feel free to murder me. --Moni3 (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I wasn't under the impression I'd please everyone!  In fact I thought there was a decent chance everyone would dislike it.  I could explain the reasoning behind it further but I should let things play out over there first.  We'll see what happens.  I do have a couple of posts over there I should comment on so I'll head over there now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

FA discussion
Hey mike - the discussion on WT:FAC was out of control, with literally dozens of fractured discussions, and rampant incivility that has spawned an ANI thread about TCO's behavior (and in turn an acrimonious discussion between Wehwalt and Sandy). I've archived the page in its entirety. I think it might be best for all concerned now if either you (a) take the lead in managing the discussion on WT:FAC (I'd do it myself but since it's a discussion about me, that would be weird), or (b) moving all the discussion to a well-structured, managed RFC page. Raul654 (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the best thing I can do is wait for the 24 hours to be up and then repost the framing discussion section. I do think that discussion should take place on WT:FAC, for visibility, but if we run into problems again I'll try a subpage.  I don't know if you're going to stick to exactly 24 hours, but if you are, I'll be unavailable when the time expires.  Tonight I'll put up a subpage of my own with the text I'd like to post after expiration; perhaps you could post that for me on expiration of the protection?


 * I'll see what I can do to control discussion, but it's going to be a challenge. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to set the protection to expire for whatever time is convenient for you. And yes, I'm willing to post whatever you want to that page prior to the expiration. Raul654 (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just posted your draft from the sandbox to WF:FAC. The protection should expire momentarily. Raul654 (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thankless job
Mike, what you're trying to do is thankless and few will appreciate what you're trying doing, but I do. You know what I've said on the pages related to this. While commendable on your part, I am sure nothing concrete will change; just like the seemingly endless talk of RFA reform, nothing significant ever changes. But thanks for trying. It'll be interesting to see if those in supporting reform ever get an FA passed again. Pumpkin Sky  talk  01:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not thankless; you just thanked me, and I appreciate it. Thank you in turn.  I'll see what I can do to "turn heat into light", to steal a phrase from the introduction to the first Guinness Book of Records. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me too. Comments left on the talk page of your draft RfC. Carcharoth (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All thanks and praise from me too. Geometry guy 00:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

On another point...
Are you interested in becoming an admin? (This may be a FAQ) --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not; and yes, it's been asked before. I wouldn't particularly mind if someone waved a magic wand and gave me the admin bit, but I don't think I'd need to use the tools more than once a year -- the way I edit, it's just not something I need.  If I ever get involved with WP:NPP, which I'd like to find time to do this spring, it might turn out to be helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If you think that in your future work with Featured Articles you might find it useful to, I dunno, be able to edit protected pages, please drop me a line. --Dweller (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Spring 2012 Classes
Mike, I did not sign you up for any classes - so feel to remove yourself from any that you do not wish to help with. That being said, if you would like to help with a few classes you are as always more than welcome to sign up for some (in particular if you want to cover one of mine again ;-) Epistemophiliac (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not sure - last time I checked I didn't think professors were supposed to add OAs on their own. That being said I would shoot an email to either Cindy or Jami as they seem to be more involved in the Online Ambassador process this semester. Epistemophiliac (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello
Thank You. :)

(Tb0412 (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC))


 * I'm not sure what you're thanking me for, but you're welcome! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC on FAC
I saw your excellent post. That's a lot of very chunky discussions. Can I suggest you subpage each group of them, to avoid discussions running into one another, edit conflicts and some of the inevitable excess of heat? --Dweller (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My current plan is to run the first pass -- the discussion about the content of the RfC -- on the FAC talk page. I'd like to attract as many editors as possible to that discussion, but since it can't reasonably be advertised as an RfC can it seems best to hold it on WT:FAC.  If that proves disruptive I'll move it to a sub page.  The RfC itself I think will have to go on a subpage, though some kind of notice should be left at the top of WT:FAC to point people at it, and I imagine notifications will be posted in quite a few places. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It clearly makes sense to discuss what goes in it in one place. Once that's decided, there's going to be a lot of edits about each theme, and it might be worth separating things into different places. --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * On this same point, the "Essay on FAC from a statistical process control perspective" discussion is presently bisecting the discussions on the RfC. I think that this important but separate discussion should be moved, perhaps to that essay's talkpage where there is a separate discussion going on (how confusing can you get?) Brianboulton (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll be posting a separate RfC page tonight to pull the discussion over there. I don't feel I have the authority to unilaterally move the Essay on FAC to that talk page, but perhaps once the RfC page is started it will reduce the problem.  If not a request to either move the discussion or focus on the RfC might help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Was looking at the notifications, and this is not a post to the centralised discussion template. The correct place to notify, I think, is Template:Centralized discussion. Also, I noticed the RfC bot added an ID number to the RfC. I'm not entirely sure how that happened. The RfC bot added it here, but that is currently unsorted. I think it all flows from the RfC tag you added to the top of the page. If you want to specify where the RfC should be listed, there is a list of parameters at Template:Rfc. policy, proj and prop are the three closest. Whether an RfC on leadership of the FA process is about policy, a project, or a proposal, I'm not sure. Maybe you were unsure as well and left it in unsorted? Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never used the centralized discussion and didn't look too closely there; if you can fix that, please do, and I'll look at the diffs and learn for next time. For the RfC, yes, I thought it wasn't a good fit for any of the topics on offer so I left it as unsorted.  It doesn't really seem to fit any of the other categories, which surprised me, but perhaps since it's of quite broad interest it's OK not to pigeonhole it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done here. That is the diff you could add to the RfC. Or I'll add it tomorrow if I remember. Carcharoth (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Book you might want...
I picked up Science Fiction Culture by Camille Bacon-Smith (2000, University of Pennsylvania Press) yesterday, quite cheap - would you be interested in it? If so, I can drop it in the mail if you drop me an email with address, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That does sound interesting; thank you! If you spot something online that you'd like in return; let me know -- particularly if it's on biblio.com, where I can buy stuff at a 10% dealer discount.  I'll send you my address.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sent out today ... I'm not totally sure you'll find much useful in it, but it could come in handy on some aspects of fandom. And hey, the price was right! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I'll let you know when it gets here, and I'll see if I can find a way to use it -- I hate to waste a ref. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Systematic use of library
When I looked at your reference library listing, it dawned on me that this could solve part of an important problem. If many people put up a reference list like yours, and they were all searchable, and the owners were willing to answer related questions, we would have a rather efficient way of checking references. I would be willing to check at least a question a day on average, for reasonably high priority articles, say FAC, GAC with more than 5000 page views per month. Do you know if this is happening? about to happen in some way? --Ettrig (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That was one of the goals I had when I created it. I recall asking at the time whether there were tags or templates or something that would assist in the search, but I think the answer was that just a general userspace search for a title would find the books.  I was thinking of a "resource search" page where you could type in a book title and get back a list of users who had that title and who were willing to look things up -- perhaps sorted by order of last edit, so you could ask active users first.  If someone can come up with something like that it would be great.  I added the link to my sig in the hope of stimulating some interest in the idea, so I'm glad you asked! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the helpful note, Mike. I will use it next time this happens. I can't imagine why people do this sort of thing, when there is so much else they could be doing her at Wikipedia. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Nebula Science Fiction
This is a note to let the main editors of Nebula Science Fiction know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 27, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/January 27, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Nebula Science Fiction was the first Scottish science fiction magazine. It was published from 1952 to 1959, and was edited by Peter Hamilton, a young Scot who was able to take advantage of spare capacity at his parents' printing company, Crownpoint, to launch the magazine. Nebula's circulation was international, with only a quarter of the sales in the United Kingdom: this led to disaster when both South Africa and Australia imposed import controls on foreign periodicals at the end of the 1950s. Excise duties imposed in the UK added to Hamilton's financial burdens, and he was rapidly forced to close the magazine down. The last issue was dated June 1959. The magazine was popular with writers, partly because Hamilton went to great lengths to encourage new writers, and partly because he paid better rates per word than much of his competition. Initially he could not compete with the American market, but he offered a bonus for the most popular story in the issue, and eventually was able to match the leading American magazines. He published the first stories of several well-known writers, including Robert Silverberg, Brian Aldiss, and Bob Shaw. Nebula was also a fan favourite: author Ken Bulmer recalls that it became "what many fans regard as the best-loved British SF magazine". (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI



 * Mike, no further movement on that, just getting back to you ... what was confusing about that case was that an established user first edited/created the article-- with a copyvio, synthesis, grammatical errors, formatting errors, the works. Then two new editors came in-- which created the impression of POV or MEAT.  So it didn't initially look like an educational project, but we somehow need to get professors to understand the use of an educational template on talk.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC closure
The comments on the RFC have now slowed to almost nothing. I think it might be time to close it. Raul654 (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree it looks ready to close, but it was agreed that Moonriddengirl would be the closer. I'll leave her a note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Cleaned watchlist -- note to any talk page stalkers
Just FYI for any talk page stalkers: I've blanked out almost my entire watchlist; I thought it was time to start over. I'm still watching the current FA RfC, and some USEP related pages, and the FAs/GAs that I nominated, but nothing else. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably a wise move; there's so much rubbish being added here, and watching it is just too stressful. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It feels like cleaning out the attic. Sometimes if you look in every box you won't throw anything out, so I figured I should just nuke the list and see what happens. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I like to keep my watchlist below about 80 pages, including several templates and guidelines that I watchlist simply for maintenance reasons. Geometry guy 04:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

WP Science Fiction in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Science Fiction for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign each answer. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with Adiantum viridimontanum
Mike, thanks for your support of this article as an FA. I'm pleased to hear the article was at least in part accessible to the general reader—the description of pseudopedate leaves for the lay reader is a Herculean task. I hope to be able to add some improved visuals later on that may make that less of a nightmare. Your time and effort in reviewing the article is much appreciated. Yours, Choess (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

soviet wage reform fac
Hello! Thanks for your help and support at the FAC for Wage reform in the Soviet Union, 1956–1962 last month. I thought I'd let you know that I'm having another go at getting that magic shiny star. The new FAC is at Featured article candidates/Wage reform in the Soviet Union, 1956–1962/archive2 and I would really appreciate any comments. cya! Coolug (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Woruldhord
Hey Mike, look what I found in my mailbox today. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear All, [so says Stuart Lee at Merton College]

I have uploaded a file to Woruldhord that can be loaded into Google Earth to show you the geographical distribution of objects contributed to the site. It should be taken very much as draft though, as I've had no time to check things therein, and there are some clear errors there. Also, I suspect, some inconsistencies about geographical origin (place it was probably originally made, or place it now resides) but such are the nuances of a small project like this. Not all objects have a map location, of course, so these will not show; but feel free to try it out with all those caveats in mind. I particularly like the pin dropped in West Virginia :-)

You can download the file (*.kml) by going to Project Woruldhord (http://projects.oucs.ox.ac.uk/woruldhord/index.html) and searching for 'google'. You will need to download Google Earth (http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en_uk/earth/explore/products/desktop.html) and then open the file in the application. You should then see a series of location pins (mainly in Britain) and as you zoom in you can click on the pin and follow the link to the object itself in Woruldhord. Or you could wander around the terrain (e.g. the Sutton Hoo mounds).

It needs tidying up but I've been sitting on this for some time now so felt it was better to get it out with all its faults.

Of course, this is yet another opportunity for me to ask if you have any material you would like to submit to Woruldhord (photos, audio recordings, teaching handouts, presentations, etc) then feel free. Just go to: http://poppy.nsms.ox.ac.uk/woruldhord/contributor and register and upload!


 * That is extremely cool. I took a look at their website but don't have Google Earth on this machine, so I will have to wait to try it till I can get my hands on my wife's shiny new PowerBook.  Thanks for the heads up! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't navigate it very well (esp. not on my notebook), and I see that all the non-relevant stuff is still on that map as well, but the links to the collection are pretty neat. I don't know Stuart Lee, but this is a real interesting thing. Of course, by the time we get to use this in the classroom there won't be any A-S classes anymore. Did I tell you that my A-S poetry class got scrapped? Instead I got business writing--yea. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Business writing -- I shudder to think what you must have to read in the way of student work. I once had an exhibit that would have been relevant: I started a company with some friends in 1998 and we wanted a comprehensible employment contract.  I got a copy of my prior contract and sent it to a UK outfit called something like "Plain Speaking" and asked them what they would charge to translate it into straightforward English.  They wanted some outlandish amount of money, but they marked up the first two sentences to show what they'd do, and I was so impressed that I went ahead and worked through the contract on my own, applying the principles I thought I could see in their example.  I think that was one of the best bits of business writing I've done, and I wish I still had the before and after versions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One-fourth of the class doesn't speak English (I'm not kidding). But worse--I was finally getting to teach a fun class again. Unfortunately not enough students had signed up, and we don't do "seminars" anymore. I actually kind of like business writing since it's so practical, but this particular class consists mainly of lazy people... Drmies (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Offa of Mercia
This is a note to let the main editors of Offa of Mercia know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 6, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/April 6, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:



Offa was the King of Mercia from 757 until his death in July 796. The son of Thingfrith and a descendant of Eowa, Offa came to the throne after a period of civil war. In the early years of Offa's reign it is likely that he consolidated his control of midland peoples such as the Hwicce and the Magonsæte. Taking advantage of instability in the kingdom of Kent to establish himself as overlord, Offa was also in control of Sussex by 771, though his authority did not remain unchallenged in either territory. He extended Mercian supremacy over most of southern England and regained complete control of the southeast. Offa was a Christian king but came into conflict with the Church, and had long-running disputes with both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Worcester. Many historians regard Offa as the most powerful Anglo-Saxon king before Alfred the Great. His reign was once seen by historians as part of a process leading to a unified England, but this is no longer the majority view. Offa died in 796 and was succeeded by his son, Ecgfrith, who reigned for less than five months before Coenwulf of Mercia took the throne. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Watched. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the ISBN for it, but was Campbell's The Anglo-Saxon State really published in 2000? Amazon say 1999. Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was 2000, according to the title page at least. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "The effort and expense that must have gone into building the dyke are impressive, and suggest that the king who had it built (whether Offa or someone else) had considerable resources at his disposal." That unattributed statement is kind of worrying. Who says they're impressive? Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll do a pass to check for anything added since it was promoted and see what comes up -- it's been long enough that I don't recall whether that sentence is from the FA or not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I put back a couple of sentences that were cut at some point -- it looks like the change was made prior to FAC though I didn't track it down. The attribution is there now.  Wormald's comments about it being impressive make a bit more sense in the context of other large "public works" projects of the era, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Educational peer reviews
Hi Mike. I noticed on the Online Ambassador Census that you might be able to help a bit more, so I was wondering if you could try out one or two Category:Educational peer review requests (would be a paragraph or so on just a general review of the state of the course as a whole). This is a bit of a new direction for the ambassador program, and I'd be glad to see you help blaze the trail!--Pharos (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi -- I had a quick look and I'm not entirely sure what the review is for -- is the intention to review the student's work so far? Or to review aspects of the course and its organization?  That page refers me to the Academic Village but I couldn't see a definition of these peer reviews there -- sorry if I missed it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it will be defined in the doing as we have the first prototype reviews, but the idea is basically to review aspects of the course and its organization, in the light of the student work. We want to offer more general guidance here, not so much individual reviews of students.--Pharos (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look and see if I have useful comments, but I'm a bit doubtful as to whether this is something I can be helpful with -- I think it's hard to make helpful comments about a course only from seeing the part of it that is visible on Wikipedia. I'll take a look and comment here again later today if I have time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I looked at this one: United_States_Education_Program/Courses/Technical_Writing_(James_Lipuma) and the students have done nothing significant, as far as I can see by checking a few contrib histories, and there is little information on the course page, so I don't really see that there's anything to say. Is this something the instructors have requested?  If so I'd rather interact directly with the instructor and answer any questions they have (though I'm a bit busy this semester and don't really want to take on more than one class this time around). Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In a case like this where things are not as well documented, it is often helpful to look at the participation log for course participants (a link to which I have now added to the top of every course page). We have now also started a guideline section at WikiProject Academical Village, which you are very free to help improve.  I know it can be somewhat unsatisfying to give a once-off review that is not giving all of the help that a full ambassadorship would, but I know that Davida (whom I've met) would still appreciate even micro-input, and find it useful to the course.--Pharos (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, we now have a few more examples of fulfilled requests in Category:Educational peer review.--Pharos (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Question
Mike, My name is Mandy, and my classmate and I have been working on an addition to the babbling page. We have noticed that the original wikipedia page lacks references and citing in its article. We were thinking that it might be a good idea for us to redo the entire article but were not sure if it is acceptable to replace what they already have. My teacher suggested asking you for your opinion since you are an online ambassador and we would greatly appreciate your feedback if you get the chance!

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amf14 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. I apologize for not being very specific. We do plan to keep quite a bit of the material on the page. Specifically, we are considering deleting the information underneath the human babbling section because they do not cite references. The information seems very interesting but we were unsure of whether it was adequate due to the lack of citations. If you believe that it is important and relevant, we will definitely consider leaving the babbling in humans section as it is. I would love to hear your opinion!

We are planning to integrate the material onto the actual page as our next step.

Amf14 (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Question
Hello,

I am a student in the Psychology of Language class that you are an ambassador for. I am currently working on the existing "Apraxia of Speech" page. So far, I have put together my own information and integrated almost all of the material from the existing page into my article (which is still all in my sandbox). What process would you suggest for moving my new information into the main space? It would be easiest to delete what is already there and just replace it with my work which includes most of the original material, however I'm not sure if it would be technically correct wikipedia etiquette to delete what is there. Any suggestions would be very helpful. Thanks! Smassaro24 (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful suggestions. I finally moved my work into the main space and have made a few changes to the formatting and content. My article can be found at Apraxia of speech. Please feel free to make any further suggestions or changes that you feel may still need to be completed. I will plan to continue updating and editing the article myself as well. I really appreciate the assistance you have provided for our class! Thank you. Smassaro24 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Medical articles lacking secondary (review) research references
Hi Mike

I keep finding more of these

The real problem is that very few of the participants seem to understand how to find peer reviewed primary and secondary research to support the contents they add to an article. Could you have a look at Associative agnosia and may be Agnosia as well which does not have the logo but appears to be part of the same pattern. dolfrog (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's an issue we've seen elsewhere in medical and related articles (such as psychology). Thanks for the heads up.  I will take a look at those articles.  Do you want me to help at Aphasia of speech, by the way?  You seem very knowledgeable in that area but I am happy to jump in with copyediting of the student work if you would like some assistance.  Is the student responding well to your suggestions? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just looked and I see you're actively cleaning up both those articles already. Can I help?  I'm not an expert on MEDRS but will read through and try to do general cleanup if you like.  However, I see that both students said they'll respond to comments on the talk page so I suggest we try that first if there are issues.  SandyGeorgia said she's going to put a few notes together on medical sourcing which I will post to the student's talk pages when available. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. SandyGeorgia is better informed regarding the content of these articles, these articles are not my main interest, more satellites of the main Aphasia article which currently my main area of interest, and how they maybe should all be more linked together, say as a Wikiproject. dolfrog (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Visual processing
Hi Mike

There is an article which is in desperate need of content, Visual processing, could be a project for one of your researchers. dolfrog (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: New quality assessments for the education program
Sure, I am happy to help. When is the deadline for the new set of assessments? Please, reply on my talk page (if you can). All the best. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 11:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome, there is no need to thank me. Do you want some explanatory notes for each of the ratings (the article needs this or that; section x is unreferenced; the article needs illustrations; sections' titles are not conform to MoS guidelines; and etcetera), or a pure and simple rating system? –p joe f (talk • contribs) 11:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Fanny Imlay for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fanny Imlay 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 Articles for deletion/Fanny Imlay 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 template from the top of the article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Rubric
Thanks, I couldn't find it :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:


 * Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasit &#124; c 17:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Drmies (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Mike, I'm pretty sure that at some point in my life (maybe during the CA training at LSU) I saw a bunch of slides, PDFs, presentations, that were designed by some Education group (maybe the PPI?) for new editors and had all kinds of guidelines in them--something like a short presentation on how to recognize a reliable source, for instance. Does this sound familiar to you? Where do we have those? I remember there was a big archive of such things which could be printed, emailed, whatever. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you mean Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes--thank you Ed! Drmies (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Mike, I'm getting on a plane to go home, but I have made progress on a draft; I will send you something tonight so you have something to talk about tomorrow, if you didn't already. Mind you, this is not about the strategic etc; it's a more modest proposal at a lower level. Please keep me posted on what happens, and please send my regards to everyone, esp. Annie, LiAnna, Sage, Adrienne, and Mike C. ("the other Mike"). Drmies (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You've got a better touch with this...
diff - I've already removed the unsourced additions of dates once... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just got back from a late meeting and had to do some things for the Education Working Group, so I'm out of time for tonight. I should be able to look at it tomorrow.  I see the user has received a note about their user name on their talk page; I wonder if they're 14 years old, as suggested there? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Fall 2012 Online Ambassador Program
Hi, Mike!

I'm not sure if you're still planning to support students as an OA this term, what with your Working Group responsibilities, but if you are, please add your name to this census. Once the new class list is available, I will notify you guys so you can sign up for a class (or two) that interests you. I hope you're still interested in supporting these students for the coming term. Thanks! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Offa of Mercia
Not a glitch -- it was a mistake by me and thank you for reverting it. -- PBS (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Fall 2012 Online Ambassador invitation for Brain and Behavior
Hi, I'm an instructor for Brain and Behavior at Roosevelt University, and my students will be editing existing Wikipedia articles as part of a class project this Fall. I and my students are newbies. I've completed the trainig at []. I'm wondering if you might be one of our class's online ambassadors? I've constructed most of my course page at []. I anticipate that we'll need your help with questions about editing and making sure that we're all complying with Wikipedia guidelines. It would also be great if you could read some of the students' articles and provide feedback. Please let me know if you're able to help out. Thanks! Neuropsychprof (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike, thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I completely understand limited time. How about if I try to find another OA for editing questions. If you have time between 10/23 & 11/3/12, I would appreciate it if you look over some course article pages and provide feedback? Neuropsychprof (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike, I've found another OA for my course. I would still appreciate you keeping an eye out for our course articles and provide feedback if you have time. Thanks! Neuropsychprof (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Bert T. Combs
A couple of years ago, you did a very nice copyedit on Bert T. Combs when it was at WP:FAC. After two successive FACs crashed and burned, largely due to lack of reviews and a spat over a fair-use image, I lost interest in the article and was content to leave it as GA. Now that I am within six or so FAs of achieving a Governors of Kentucky featured topic, I've returned to this article, as it should be easier than most to bring to FA status. You mentioned in your copyedit a resource from Credo Reference. Since there weren't enough free Credo accounts for me to get one, would you mind trying to find that again and sending it to me? (Just use the "Email this user" feature, and I'll reply with my email.) Also, you mentioned a good NYT article about the primary between Combs and Wendell H. Ford during the copyedit. If you still have access to that, I'd like to have it as well. One of my local libraries has the oral history, so I will be consulting that as well. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Authentic Science Fiction
Coming soon, a good time to polish article and blurb, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Guyana
Hi Mike Christie!

Dthomsen8 and I are trying to get WikiProject Guyana going again. I noticed you'd made some really helpful contributions to the History of Guyana page - and were offering help with sources... Any chance you might be up for joining the project? All best, Lorelei (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello again! Just so you know, we've added your list to the project page - thanks so much again :) Lorelei (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009/archive3
Hi, as you participated in a previous FAC for this article, I wondered if you would take a look at the article again. I have gone through the article, and the comments from the previous FACs and made a number of changes to the article. As always, any input you might have would be appreciated. Regards,  Harrias  talk 15:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Sea, swamp or alluvium
What I suspect happened in the 8 July 2012 edit of File:Britain peoples circa 600.svg is that the grey area is not all sea. Indeed, the key has the newly added text 'Sea, swamp or alluvium'. In this case, alluvium likely means river flood plains and deltas. Personally, I'd revert to the 17 June 2012 version until Hel-hama provides a sources for those additional changes. Carcharoth (talk) 08:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. I don't think that version is on any of the articles that I've worked on, but you might make the same comment to Ealdgyth in case she wants to change the map too.  Thanks for looking into this -- I appreciate it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike, the information I asked for has been supplied here. It was supplied by the image creator, User:Hel-hama on Wikimedia Commons. Hope that helps (the atlas sounds interesting, I will keep an eye out for it, but you could ask Hel-hama if you want to know more about it). Carcharoth (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- that looks very useful. I've ordered a copy and will add it to my library; thanks for the follow up on this! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

FAC
I have made a review of New Worlds, the magazine you nominated for FAC. May I request you a review of Featured article candidates/May Revolution/archive6 in exchange? Cambalachero (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad to, though it's not my area of expertise. I will try to get to it this weekend, though I am insanely busy in real life at the moment and I may not be able to complete the review by the end of the weekend.  Thanks for the review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Precious

 * Thank you! I appreciate the thought and the barnstar.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggested Ace Books to be considered for TFA, please feel free to join the discussion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Somerset FAC
Thanks for that! I've sorted the signature out now. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

First cut at working group RFC
Mike, I went through the RFC and made some edits to bring it more inline with the Phase II objectives language and make some statements more concise. I have also created the primary link to the Strategic Plan/Proposal page (just a dummy page now) but it will allow be to make the moves better behind the scenes when we go live. Additionally, I struck out some of the wording, because I didn't think it appropriate to delete them out of hand, but it is wording that I believe should NOT be in the RfC. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- that's very helpful. I'm about to compose an initial post to the talk page of the RfC and will send a note to the task force to contribute there; once the whole WG has had a chance to contribute I'd like the task force to come to consensus on any controversial points, though no doubt others in the WG will chip in to the conversation.  Please join in there if you have time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

A small thing I don't want to clutter up the mag's FAC with
"... the last of the late 1970s issues". To me, 1970s is a plural, whereas as what's meant here is a possessive, i.e. the issues from the 1970s, and should therefore be "1970's". I think that people are so frightened of grocer's apostrophe's that they're often frightened of using apostrophes at all. Discuss. Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I started answering this and had to stop and think. Initially I thought it was "the last of the issues from the late 1970s", and hence "the last of the late 1970s' issues", but that would only work if it were a possessive, and it isn't; it's an attributive noun usage.  I think "late 1970s" is a noun, here being used in an adjectival way, so it's not a possessive and no apostrophe is needed.  (Pause to click on things.)  In fact, reading the attributive noun article, I see that precisely this debate is mentioned there.  Hmph.  Well, I guess we can go with preference.  If you think it looks wrong without the apostrophe, let's add it, but I parse it more naturally as an attributive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a case could be made for either "1970's" or "1970s, but not "1970s". In any event, I won't be creating any ripples at your FAC by bringing the issue up there, and nor will I make the change to your article if you're unconvinced. Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * PS. Fowler is constantly by my side, so maybe I take a more traditional, harder line than some other editors. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I like Fowler, but I rarely refer to him any more; I've read some good criticism of him though I think he's almost always right. In this case, I'd be willing to switch to your view if you insisted, but I have to say I'm unconvinced -- to me it's an attributive use.
 * Thanks for the help, both with the lead and general copyediting -- I was afraid this one wasn't going through, but it made it in the end. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not going to insist. Congratulation on getting New Worlds through FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Project
Hi Mike, thanks for the link to this. I've added it to my watchlist (currently tiny) and will take a look when I have some time. From a cursory glance, it looks interesting. I'm not around much these days, but this is something that interests me. Congrats btw on the promotion for New Worlds. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you delete your watchlist and start over? I did that and found it worthwhile; I dropped a lot of debris and things I was no longer interested in.
 * The project stems from this, which you may have seen; some of the debate there is about whether students are worth the trouble they cause. We've figured out how to measure the quality of the work they do, but there hasn't been any way to measure how big a burden that places on the editors who encounter the students, so people on both sides of the argument are having to rely on personal experiences with students, and anecdotal evidence.  I decided it was worth trying to do something more precise.  It's a big job, but I think it's worth it: done right, it will be useful evidence for future discussions about education on Wikipedia.
 * If you do have time to help, the most useful thing you could do is pick a row for which I've already filled in the diffs, and fill in the 5th and 6th columns. The 5th column is just a description of what the student did ("vandalized article", "added sourced content", or whatever), and the 6th column is what had to be done in response.  The 6th column is a bit of a judgement call, but the idea is to only include information about what had to be done because the student had made things worse.  For example, if they vandalize, someone has to revert it.  It can be a bit harder if there's a debate about whether the material belongs in the article, or whether it's original research, but I am just trying to document what I find.
 * No worries if you're too busy, of course. And thanks for the review and support at New Worlds. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I did delete my watchlist and start over - it bloated up quickly and I deleted it again. I only keep pages that are interesting and I might forget or that I really would like to work on someday, the rest are gone. It's very minimalist and liberating. I'll need to spend some time looking at what you're doing here but it looks like a worthwhile effort and I'd like to help if I have time. I haven't been writing at all recently, so when I'm around I might pick at this a bit. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Burden analysis
Got a question for you. I saw that you calculated the course score but the "burden questionnaire score" column is all blank. Also, maybe you should make it clear that the aim of the course score is high value, not low (because you're switching back and forth between burden score and course score, which will easily lose the focus of those that aren't reading it carefully and re-reading it. It took me a few times to understand the overall objective and how the scoring works) OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The burden questionnaire refers to this page, which received only a few responses; the responses were used when they referred to articles that I assessed in the main analysis table. There were only four or five cases where that happened, so that column is mostly blank -- perhaps I shouldn't count them, but I hate to ignore data.  I agree on the confusing plus vs. minus.  I just got given the data for the course I was missing; I'm going to do that analysis and then redo the metric slightly so good numbers are positive and bad ones are negative. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Just pointing out
This may interest you. Not sure if it's under your purview. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My analysis is restricted to spring 2012, and in fact Rice University is included -- that's one of the stronger classes. Nice to see students doing good work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Roosevelt University PSYC 336 Brain and Behavior project
Hi, I had contacted you earlier to ask you to be an online ambassador for my class. I understand you're very busy and can't add this to your responsibilities now. However, students have posted their first edits of articles for this course. You can take a look at the topics here. If you have time to look over any that interests you, your feedback regarding content, breadth, depth, style, etc. would be sincerely appreciated. Students have until 11/13 to improve their article and address reviewer feedback. Thanks! Neuropsychprof (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, your feedback on Animal sexual behavior's talk page is great! Thank you! Please feel free to comment on more of the articles listed in the class article table over the next week if you have time. Students have until 11/13 to address all reviewer comments. Neuropsychprof (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, confused you with Mike Cline
I just realized you were the one who posted the final draft on the quality report, not Cline as I mentioned. Churn and change (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Damn, I was so proud of the work to! --Mike Cline (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'll take credit for all your work, and you can take credit for all of mine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Æthelbald
Hi Mike, While comparing Category:Wikipedia featured articles vs Category:Featured articles, I discovered that Æthelbald of Mercia was missing its star. Looks like an editor removed it while editing in August, you reverted, and then you didn't catch it when he did it again a few days later. I have restored the star, but you might want to take a closer look at the other changes he made. Maralia (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- I hadn't noticed the missing star. I reverted the editor's other changes; one was an unsourced addition and he also did something to the infobox which didn't seem important, so I just went back prior to his edits.  Thanks for the note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Anglian collection
A page has recently been created for one of the manuscripts (Vespasian VI) that preserves copies of the Anglian collection. I have serious doubts whether each of the four manuscripts merits its own page, but I have been struggling for days with the creator and do not necessarily trust my judgement. The creating editor is proponent of a couple of fringe genealogy authors, and has been creating POINTy and COATRACK pages in order to make a place on Wikipedia to promote their ideas (e.g. apparently the kings of Wessex descend from Jesus via Woden). Since you created the parent Anglian collection article, I would appreciate your input on whether the new page should remain (and if so how much detail it should give, to avoid repetition or content forking), be merged into Anglian collection, or simply redirected to that page. Agricolae (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note; I'll reply at the talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Analysis and the 64 percent
Hi Mike. I was directed to Common misconceptions about the Wikipedia Education Program and responded to some of the points on the talk page. This raised the issue of the analysis that produced the "64% improvement" statistic. I'm afraid I've never been in-the-loop wrt the education program and only seem bump into it from time to time. I don't know whether your analysis has been discussed somewhere already. I appreciate such analysis is not an easy thing to do but am concerned that there was pressure perhaps to produce a nice round statistic that could be quoted as a "look - students are good for WP" simplistic argument. My recent experience of student edits remains disappointingly negative at the "waste of time for everyone involved, and made Wikipedia worse" level. While I do see improvements in places, the defensive attitude of the WMF (as illustrated by that FAC/misconceptions page) just seem to enforce the idea that they and Wikipedians are talking past each other rather than understanding each other. I would be interested if you feel the analysis work would have caught the problems I raised with two medical articles on the above talk page, and whether the kinds of problems those article developed are being dealt with as part of improvements to the programme. Colin°Talk 16:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm at work and don't have time to post much, but you might like to look at this: Ambassadors/Research/Spring 2012 burden analysis, which I did to try to address the gaps in the analysis left by the quality review. I agree that the quality review omits key facts about the student interactions -- I'm not sure the burden analysis answers those questions, but it's an attempt in that direction.  Let me know what you think.  I will be able to respond more this evening (US east coast time). Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
I think his flippant and obscure comments are worth mentioning, as well the bits about 'truth'. Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Ace Books
This is a note to let the main editors of Ace Books know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 6, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/December 6, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Ace Books is the oldest active specialty publisher of science fiction and fantasy books and issued many of the best known science fiction writers of the 1950s and 1960s. The company was founded in New York City in 1952 by Aaron A. Wyn, and began as a genre publisher of mysteries and westerns. It soon branched out into other genres, publishing its first science fiction title in 1953; this was a successful innovation, and within a few years, such titles outnumbered both mysteries and westerns. Ace became known for the tête-bêche binding format used for many of its early books, although it did not originate the format. Most of the early titles were published in this "Ace Double" format, and Ace continued to issue books in varied genres, bound tête-bêche, until 1973. These have proved attractive to book collectors, and some rare titles in mint condition command prices up to $1,000. It was one of the leading science fiction publishers for its first ten years, but its fortunes began to decline after the death of owner A. A. Wyn in 1967. Two prominent editors, Donald A. Wollheim and Terry Carr, left in 1971, and in 1972 Ace was sold to Grosset & Dunlap. It is now an imprint of Penguin Group (USA). (Full article...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Congrats, Mike! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC/U
Have you looked at the guidance? Have you got a 2nd person involved in the same dispute? See and associated pages. Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've looked at the guidance. I think Agricolae will be willing to certify, and possibly Ealdgyth too.  I've asked Agricolae to pick out some diffs and haven't heard back yet; I can pick some out myself but he has spent the most time dealing with Paul and can probably point to the most egregious examples of poor logic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not going to spend much time on this issue, but will comment briefly that some time ago on FTN I commented that Paul's self-designation as "King of Fringe" was justified - and that those types of reigns do not last long. Most of that reign has been on Afd pages anyway. I guess my prediction may well come true. If/when a case is presented please just leave me a brief message and I will just type a short comment there, for I do not want to spend time on these things. History2007 (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I will definitely let you know when I get the RfC/U running.  Like you, I don't want to spend time on this sort of thing, but I think in this case it may be worth the investment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * May want to ask Akhilleus as well, based on this comment. I joked about it not to spend time on an Afd, but as I said, the page should have never been built.

I took a quick look at your draft and my feeling is that the same fringe energies will just get focused elsewhere. I said on WP:FTN (11 November 2012 ) regarding the Montgomery notice that:


 * By virtue of the decade old nature of Wiki culture (may I say that it borders on gluttony?) it is pretty hard to stop users from adding fringe items - all that can be done is to spend effort discussing it, do an Afd as above, discuss it again and again until the page is deleted, the item is determined to be fringe and removed, etc. The Montgomery page is already on that train and will reach the destination in a few days.


 * The types of users who have a natural penchant for fringe then typically focus their efforts elsewhere and add other fringe items that they find interesting, and the cycle continues elsewhere for some time.


 * After a long while most of the fringe will go away, and a pattern gets established with respect to the user behavior.


 * The rest is well known, per policy.

That seems to have happened now, as stated here regarding the reign of the King. So if the Ancestory road is blocked, more fringe items will appear elsewhere, often via Coatracks.

You can see that phenomenon already: Pseudo science gets banned, then ancestory comes in. Once ancestory is banned, articles on Martian caves inhabited by cyborgs will begin to appear. So the desired solution needs to be broader. History2007 (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I will try to find time tomorrow for diffs. I guess we can start with Anglo-Saxon history and genealogy broadly construed and then if there are problems elsewhere work on those. Note that if actually starts messing with fringe stuff again he is likely to have ArbCom discretionary sanctions imposed as he's been formally warned. Dougweller (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to work on more diffs tonight, but a work emergency intervened. Anything you can provide would be great. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not just this user, but those who have a special tilt towards fringe will just do more. Not that they want to, it just happens. If you remember Brucie, he used to do dental implant fringe, Christ myth fringe, US gov fringe, etc. Mark Twain said: It is so easy to give up smoking, I have done it myself a thousand times. That is how it goes.


 * So I think the breadth of the ban should be "historical fringe theories" given that history/antiquities seem to be his main interest now. The Arbcom issue was scientific so will not apply to general fringe in historical context. He will still be free to work on articles that suggest Lindsey Lohan dated Bill Clinton, but he has not touched those yet. History2007 (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I take your point, but I don't know RfC/U process well enough to know if that will be successful, given that the diffs I'm assembling are specifically about Anglo-Saxon topics and genealogy. From my understanding, there is no ability for an RfC/U to mandate an outcome that the user is unwilling to accept, and I think it unlikely that Paul would agree to a general topic ban from any fringe topic.  That's why I suggested a voluntary ban from Anglo-Saxon and genealogy topics.  Can you see a better approach we could take? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not at the moment, let's go ahead with this. Dougweller (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

While we're dealing with things...
NOt sure if you've got Talk:Middle Ages watchlisted. Input welcomed. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've watchlisted it (and Uffingas -- *sigh*) but am unlikely to have much spare time for a while. Is it specifically Miranche's comment that you're looking for input on?  My knowledge of the Middle Ages is pretty narrow -- other than the early Anglo-Saxons, I've read a few books but am an inch deep everywhere.  These broad survey articles are really hard to get right and I think they require a lot of knowledge of the field, which I don't really have.  Still, if I can help, I will; just let me know if it's Miranche's post you're thinking of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Uffingas was a duplicate article, I've turned it into a redirect. Dougweller (talk) 07:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I"m hoping for some input from the usual suspects ... I think it's not really needed there. This whole "postclassical" description isn't something I'm running into much in my reading - I'm wondering if it's an idea that a professor or two is pushing. I'm noting that his source is The Teaching Company. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Godulf
Done but given recent article creations the remedy suggested looks too narrow. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think it would be justified to expand the remedy to all history and history-related articles? That would include genealogy and Anglo-Saxon history, and archaeology too.  The problem I see is that almost every edit he makes is problematic and requires review by other editors.  I would like to see him limit himself to editing only on talk pages for *all* articles; I don't think he has demonstrated the judgement required to helpfully edit articles.  I suspect that's not a reasonable remedy to request on an RfC/U, though.  However, you are probably more familiar with this process than I am; what would you recommend?


 * Another option would be to ask an Arbcom member for advice on how to proceed, in terms of what they would expect for dispute resolution before seeing an arbcom case. I know Casliber well enough to ask him for an opinion -- should I do that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't hurt. Go ahead and ask. I've moved the talk page to User:Dougweller/Talk:Godulf Geoting. Sorry it's not attached to the article. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * See Requests for comment/Milogardner. When he ignored it he got banned. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for restoring the revs. Milogardner got topic-banned from a particular area; that's making me think we should make the area of concern in the RfC/U the same as the area we feel he should be topic-banned from if he continues, which is all history-related articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I posted a question to David Fuchs, here; Casliber is in Australia and since I think the group involved here are all in the UK or US it's probably quicker to talk to someone in those timezones. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * History and genealogy. Dougweller (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The draft currently asks for a ban for "history topics, defined broadly enough to include archaeology and genealogy topics", so I think that works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Questions
Hey Mike. I've read over the draft RfC and a few of the associated links. I know all this stuff seems like a waste of time when you could be editing peaceably otherwise, but at this juncture I'd recommend moving forward with the RfC. As you note, ArbCom is intended to be the last and (ideally) final step of dispute resolution, and if at all possible it's best to address them via broader community methods. You've put together a pretty clear body of evidence. If it does come to a RfAr, a well-drafted RfC is an excellent reference for arbs to read up on the history of the dispute and as an area for gathering evidence for a case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Having thought it about it some more, I agree it's the right next step.  I appreciate you taking the time to look at the RfC; let's hope it doesn't ever get to ArbCom.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the reply. FYI I edited my section heading here to be more expansive and descriptive. Biosthmors (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me at that; I see you're interested in medicine. That, along with psychology, is actually one of the more troublesome areas for the education program, because it's easy for students to make edits that appear to be reasonable if you're not somewhat knowledgeable about the topic.  I hope the new organization can find ways to make students editing in those areas more productive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That problem was a big factor in why I started doing it. =) I'm trying to collect/distill wisdom at User:Biosthmors/Intro Neuro and User talk:Biosthmors/Intro Neuro, FYI. Biosthmors (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Paul Bedson RFCU
Could you fill me in as to why I was notified? p b  p  23:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It was because you commented at one of the AfDs, here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(piggybacking off related thread) I'd say if there's a consensus to restrict or ban that you can ask an admin to evaluate the RFC, close and implement. In the interests of giving everyone a chance to respond and give feedback and input I don't think that time period could be any less than a week; they usually seem to run for 14 days. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Forgot to post to any Wikiprojects. Mike, can you do this for me? Hm, I think we'd assumed that banning wasn't possible, and thus that isn't being discussed at the RfC. Maybe we missed a trick. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll do History and Archaeology tonight. Any others?
 * Re banning, I think the guidelines were clear we can't ask for that. We should give it a week, as David says, and then see how Paul is behaving.  If he's still continuing his behaviour then I think that would count as consensus he's breaking the rules.  I would support a ban; can a ban be imposed by discussion at AN? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In a week or so we can ask an Administrator to close it. I think that's an alternative to a summary, so that's the best thing to do. Let's not worry about this for a while. His behavior at that point doesn't matter. We'll take this one step at a time.
 * See User:Dougweller/Progonoplexia. Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I posted a note at the history, archaeology, and genealogy WikiProjects. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, sorry about that. Dougweller (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
PS: See the talk page--I moved a recent comment on some recent edits, which was placed in a 2006 thread, down the page. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice to hear from you! Thanks for the barnstar and the heads up -- I responded there.  I ended up reverting the change; I don't think "scifi" can be used, since it's widely disliked within the field, and the academic sources never use it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what I figured, and I saw how you had it in the 2006 version, but didn't want to revert in 'your' article. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I dropped a link to the article on my boss's Facebook page; he's an sf buff, and responded "Ah, Ace Books--a beloved institution in science fiction." So, thanks! Drmies (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I must have bought almost all their double books. That shows my age! Dougweller (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And your [....] taste in literature. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My boss confirmed the double edition part (or whatever it's called), and it brought a smile to his face. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Source link
Hi Mike, for your assessment page, the first source ("Machismo in Chile") can be seen here. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- I couldn't find it on archive.org; I wonder what I did wrong. I appreciate it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Bedson
Maybe tomorrow if there isn't anything on the main page tonight. I assume you know about the list at the top of WP:AN? Good work here, I'm really pleased. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I didn't know; I don't ever look at the admin boards. I'll put AN on my watchlist; I agree that tonight seems fine.
 * I don't know the likely outcome, but I think anything short of an indefinite topic ban on history, archaeology, and genealogy would be a mistake. I'd support a full site ban.  I don't think Paul is capable of being a productive contributor in any topic area. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It was in the section for articlespace RfCs so I moved it. Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Dougweller (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism sample
Eek, sorry Mike, I just got around to reviewing a very old post you made to my talk page, while I was mostly off-Wiki, and found plagiarism in that course. I started a section at the ENB. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Better late than never. Thanks for getting around to looking at it.  I'm at work so can't post much, and will be fairly busy over the next couple of days but will check in at that discussion when I can.  I was rather overburdened that semester and don't think I was much use as an online ambassador.  I was unable to actively review the articles they worked on; I think I responded to maybe one question on my talk page during that semester, and that was it.  Glad I asked you to look at it (and thanks for the kind words on the ENB page!). Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Mike. One Education Program article you might want to look at is gaze. After it was rewritten by some students, I noticed several examples of blatant plagiarism from the sources. They fixed the ones I pointed out, but I never had time to go through all the sources in detail. Kaldari (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Source usage analysis of Women in Chile
Kaldari (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied. Kaldari (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! I think we got the right outcome, with reasonable speed.  Thanks for the help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 03:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

..
Seasons greetings to you and yours Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassadors update
Hi! You're getting this message because you are or have been a Wikipedia Ambassador. A new term is beginning for the United States and Canada Education Programs, and I wanted to give you an update on some important new information if you're interested in continuing your work this term as a Wikipedia Ambassador.

You may have heard a reference to a transition the education program is going through. This is the last term that the Wikimedia Foundation will directly run the U.S. and Canada programs; beginning in June, a proposed thematic organization is likely to take over organizing the program. You can read more about the proposal here.

Another major change in the program will take effect immediately. Beginning this term, a new MediaWiki education extension will replace all course pages and Ambassador lists. (See Course pages and Help:Education Program extension for more details.) Included in the extension are online volunteer and campus volunteer user rights, which let you create and edit course pages and sign up as an ambassador for a particular course.

If you would like to continue serving as a Wikipedia Ambassador — even if you do not support a class this term — you must create an ambassador profile. If you're no longer interested in being a Wikipedia Ambassador, you don't need to do anything.

First, you need the relevant user rights for Online and/or Campus Ambassadors. (If you are an admin, you can grant the rights yourself, for you as well as other ambassadors.) Just post your rights request here, and we'll get you set up as quickly as possible.
 * Please do these steps as soon as possible

Once you've got the ambassador rights, please set up at a Campus and/or Online Ambassador profile. You can do so at:
 * Special:CampusAmbassadorProfile
 * Special:OnlineAmbassadorProfile

Going forward, the lists of Ambassadors at Special:CampusAmbassadors and Special:OnlineAmbassadors will be the official roster of who is an active Ambassador. If you would like to be an Ambassador but not ready to serve this term, you can un-check the option in your profile to publicly list it (which will remove your profile from the list).

After that, you can sign on to support courses. The list of courses will be at Special:Courses. (By default, this lists "Current" courses, but you can change the Status filter to "Planned" to see courses for this term that haven't reached their listed start date yet.)

As this is the first term we have used the extension, we know there will be some bugs, and we know the feature set is not as rich as it could be. (A big wave of improvements is already in the pipeline. And if you know MediaWiki and could help with code review, we'd love to have your help!) Please reach out to me (Sage Ross) with any complaints, bug reports, and feature suggestions. The basic features of the extension are documented at Course pages, and you can see a tutorial for setting up and using them here.

In the past, the Education Program has had a pretty fragmented set of communication channels. We're trying to fix that. These are the recommended places to discuss and stay up-to-date on the education program:
 * Communication and keeping up to date
 * 1) The education noticeboard has become the main on-wiki location for discussion of the Education Program. You can post there about broad education program issues as well as issues with individual courses.
 * 2) The Ambassadors Announce email list is a very low-traffic announcements list of important information all Ambassadors need to be aware of. We encourage all Ambassadors (and other interested Wikipedians) to subscribe to the list; follow the instructions on the link to add your email address.
 * 3) If you use IRC regularly, or need to try to reach someone immediately, the  IRC channel is the place to find me and fellow Ambassadors.

We now have an online training for Ambassadors, which is intended to be both an orientation about the Wikipedia Ambassador role for newcomers and the manual for how to do the role. (There are parallel trainings for students and for educators as well.)
 * Ambassador training and resources

Please go through the training if you feel like you need a refresher on how a typical class is supposed to go and where the Ambassadors fit in, or if you want to review and help improve it. If there's something you'd like to see added, or other suggestions you have for it, feel free to edit the training and/or leave feedback. A primer on setting up and using course pages is included in the educators' training.

The Resources page of the training is the main place for Ambassador-related resources. If there's something you think is important as a resource that's not on there, please add it.

Finally, whether or not you work with any classes this term, I encourage you to post entries to the Trophy Case whenever you see excellent work from students or if you have great examples from past semesters. And, as always, let students (and other editors!) know when they do things well; a little WikiLove goes a long way!

--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Synod of Baccanceld
The article Synod of Baccanceld is a copy of a Catholic Encyclopedia article and is based on a charter now considered a forgery. I think it should be deleted. Do you agree? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Aldfrith of Northumbria
Just a message to let you know that I've scheduled Aldfrith of Northumbria as the TFA on 27th January 2013. Hope this is OK. I checked for deadlinks first and one was reporting dead but was very much alive, so I don't know what the problem there was... Regards, BencherliteTalk 00:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll watchlist it too.. at least I can beat back the obvious crap. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Just Babbling
Came across this more or less by chance (I'm teaching HEL and this came up), and it's a very decent article--thanks in part to you, since it was produced under the aegis of WikiProject Psychology/APS-Wikipedia Initiative. I wish those editors had stuck around! So, thanks again for being such a model ambassador, which has helped improve our project. Ma ma ma da da da! Drmies (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I wish I could take credit for all the good student work out there, but then I guess I'd have to take the blame when they screw up. It's particularly nice to hear about a good psychology article, though, because those have generally been less successful -- psychology and medicine don't appear to be good topics for students to work on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested
In a dispute regarding an alleged case of closed paraphrasing here. Please not the most recent version of the article, which is in the table at the very bottom of that discussion. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Paul Bedson
You might be interested in Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson and. Dougweller (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Let's hope the IP block stops him, but if he's editing from a range of IPs as he claims we're likely to see him again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

How old is old
I have looked around. Who is your oldest king. I think my oldest subjects are Wolf Point, Chicago and Block 37 (which now redirects). These two subjects are both as old as the City of Chicago itself. I can't get much older in my region, unless I get into Native American history. When was the United Kingdom London founded. My articles are the equivalent of articles from whenever that was.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Washington Block and Hyde Park House are my oldest buildings, but I have not taken them to WP:GA. I am way too lazy to figure out which GAs are the oldest. Paul Cornell (lawyer) is about my oldest person that is a GA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * London was founded (as a permanent settlement, anyway) by the Romans, so it's first century AD. That's older than any topic I've written about; my oldest topic is Ælle of Sussex, who was around (if he existed at all) in the fifth century AD.  Among my magazine articles, Amazing Stories is the oldest; that goes back to 1926. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Epikleros dates close to 500 BC. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

U of T class
See my question on my talk page. Colin°Talk 17:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

copyright search for FAC
Hello Mike Christie, i'll try and note the actions step by step - let me note, that i'm also just an end-user here, by no means an expert in those copyright archives. Hope that helps, please let me know, if some of those steps are not working and we can trace the problem from there. GermanJoe (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Start at http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ for pre-1979 renewals (a different one has post-1978 entries). A renewal has to have happened 27 years after publication, so you usually are fine with searching 1 year (or maybe 2 to be safe).
 * 2) A complete listing of numerical dates (1891 - 1978) is shown, in our case click 1969 (internal link data is http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/1969r.html).
 * 3) You should see a new page titled "Copyright registrations for 1969", click "periodicals" (second link from top).
 * 4) The click just leads you down on the same page, to a section called "Periodicals: Original registrations and renewals"
 * 5) In this section, click the second link, labelled "Renewals" (pp. 385-420)
 * 6) The page changes to http://www.archive.org/stream/catalogofcopy19693232libr#page/385/mode/1up, displaying page 385 of the full document in a kind of book browser application inside your internet browser. If this doesn't work, maybe you blocked cookies or Java in your browser for this site or are using an incompatible browser. Firefox 19.0.2 with installed Java and disabled script blocker for this site atleast works fine.
 * 7) You should see two toolbars, one above and one below the book display. If you don't see those, click the arrow in the lower right corner of the window to open those toolbars.
 * 8) The upper toolbar has an entryfield "search inside", enter search terms and press "Go" :). A message is shown: "Search results will be shown below", that step does need a bit time for searching. The resulting hits will be shown in the lower part of the window as marks on a search bar, representing the whole book. You can click on those marks to directly navigate to the page in question.
 * Thanks -- I'll take a look this evening after work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a PEBKAC error; in step 5 I was clicking on "Part 2: Periodicals, January-December 1969" instead of renewals. D'oh.  Thanks for the help! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: iPhone rollback
Thanks for the tip! I added the code to my vector.js file. Hopefully that will solve the issue. Best, GabrielF (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

gender disparities in health
hi! i got an email from my professors informing me that you vetted the gender disparities in health page and that you highlighted that some sentences that are too close to the source text to be acceptable. On that, I actually put up some of the material first but i have yet to properly adjust the sentences. I actually plan to review the entire article soon to make sure that everything is well-paraphrased in a way it is a new statement. However, on that note, I am afraid that I might miss some statements out I was wondering if you would be willing to help me double check over the article over to make sure that everything is in order and that there is no more source text issues? Hope to hear from you soon. cheers! Benongyx (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hartebeest
Hi Mike! Please see your comments at the FAC, to which I have replied since long. Sainsf &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 01:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nudge; I've updated my comments at the FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have seen to your comments. The book has good stuff, thanks for that, but not so relevant. Just a doubt still, see the discussion. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 12:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * More improvements. Sorry I was a bit late, see now. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 13:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Non-membership board
Hi. Thanks for your response. I can understand the limits of incorporating in the United States, but I do not understand the need to incorporate in the United States, and how both WM-DC and WM-NYC both can apparently be member organizations but WEF cannot. I would hold the principle that if the legal requirements are such that the United States legal organizational rules are such that they mean that for WEF to operate, it needs to be completely removed from the community with the community unable to be stakeholders in the organization, than it is flawed. I would very much like to see a more detailed response on the WEF page as to why I cannot join the organization as a member? Why I cannot be a member and with other members call extraordinary general meetings to change the bylaws should the board be acting irresponsibility? Why the board MUST be constituted in the United States given the international nature of the movement and the scope? Why no one from WEF was participating in the Etherpad meeting for Milan yesterday? Why there is no process for members of the Wikimedia community to call for the removal of board members? Maybe I missed that in the bylaws? Can you highlight in the bylaws where the Wikimedia community (since we cannot JOIN) can have a say in the organization beyond possibly being on the board? --LauraHale (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The most important reason for incorporating in the US is the need to be able to accept tax-deductible donations in the US. We are not planning to immediately incorporate in Canada, because of the expense, but we hope to do so sooner or later because otherwise we won't be able to accept tax-deductible donations from Canadians.  A related point is that the WEF doesn't have international scope; its scope is limited to the US and Canada only -- this is because the WMF is continuing to fund the education programme in other countries; it's only the US and Canada which the WMF wanted to spin off, so that has to be our scope.  Of course all editors on en-wiki are, willy-nilly, likely to see the impact of education programme activity in any English-speaking country, but as it stands the WMF plans to continue responsibility for the UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and anywhere else with a large English-speaking population -- India, for example.
 * Re membership: yes, I would have liked to be able to find a way to make this a membership organization, and I agree it's a pity we weren't able to do so. I for one would be willing to change to a membership structure if I could see a way to make it work.  However, I just don't see how.  I listed several reasons, but the one I have the hardest time seeing a way around is that we want to have representation from two largely separate constituencies -- the editing community and the education community.  A membership structure allows every member to vote on every board seat.  I don't see how to get around that.  The WMF board is similarly structured; it is not a membership organization but is set up to elect board members from the community.
 * I wasn't on the Etherpad meeting and haven't seen the transcript, but Richard Knipel, one of our board members, is in Milan, and may have participated.
 * As far as removing board members, legally, only the members can elect board members, so the way a misbehaving board would be reined in would be via the election of new board members. Out of the seven seats currently planned to be active, there are three for the Wikipedia community and three for educators, plus one for the WMF.  An eighth board member is planned to be added from what we're currently calling "groups"; these are, we hope, going to be associations of educators and editors who are interested in certain topics -- e.g. there might be a group of editors and professors interested in working on psychology articles, or who are all associated with a particular university campus.  That seat could be taken by an educator, a campus ambassador, or an online ambassador.
 * -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey
Hello, long time no speak hope your doing fine. Are you busy at the moment? Best, jona  talk to me  03:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm very busy; haven't had much editing time recently. I can manage something quick, but not a FAC review -- I see you have something at FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a FAC review but no worries. Best, jona  talk to me  12:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Cnut and Emma Minster Register.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Cnut and Emma Minster Register.jpg

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Cnut and Emma Minster Register.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cnut and Emma Minster Register.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Ceolwulf of Wessex for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ceolwulf of Wessex 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 Articles for deletion/Ceolwulf of Wessex 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. 22:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

WEF hosting
Hey Mike—I was reading the minutes recently and saw that hosting was discussed in May. Did y'all find a solution? I'm not sure of WEF's affiliation with Stanford, but if you're still looking for a home, I could do any potential footwork at UW–Madison School of Education if it'll help. Take care czar   &middot;   &middot;  04:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi -- it looks like there is a good chance we'll be able to come to an agreement with the WMF, so for now I think we're OK. Thanks for the offer, though; and if the current plans don't work out, I may be in touch. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

radiocarbon dating
in the section on fractionation, there are two formulae which are similar but have different values. So it is not true that one can be rewritten as the other. Which of these is the usual definition of this expression (delta 13 C)? ---Ehrenkater (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right; I misread the source, which describes the second expression but doesn't give it. The first expression is the usual definition.  The second expression is obtained by multiplying the first by


 * $$ \mathrm{\frac{\bigl( \frac{^{13}C}{^{12}C} \bigr)_{PDB}}{\bigl( \frac{^{13}C}{^{12}C} \bigr)_{PDB}}} $$


 * which of course is equal to one. The entire formula I give should be divided by


 * $$ \mathrm $$


 * I'm not very experienced with the math markup; if you can do this quickly please do so, otherwise I'll give it a shot later. Thanks for catching that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I gave it a shot and figured it out; I also changed the text to match. Thanks again; please let me know if you see more mistakes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The Methods section mentions a vacuum of -25 psi. But 25 psi is more than 1 atmosphere, so how is that possible? Ehrenkater (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look later; but that's not my work -- I am working my way through the article and have not reached that part yet. Fix it if you can see how; otherwise I'll fix it when I reach it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

GAR
--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you ...
Keep an eye on Augustine of Canterbury? I think the debate on whether the cross is correctly located best belongs on the article of the cross ... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I re-added it to my watchlist and will comment if I have anything useful to say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Re:
Thanks a lot. Honestly, it hurts more since I am more of a community member (it.wp), than a WMF employee. But this also allows me to realize better than most of these people, although using the wrong means, are just trying to protect something they are very, very passionate about since they feel VE might ruin it. With this in mind, it is actually simpler to keep calm. I am usually very, very vocal as well in such matters. But it's been a while since I also realized "fighting against" another part of our movement is not just useless, it's actually harming us. Cooperation must always be the key and hey, since you and my colleagues keep telling me I'm good at it, I'll probably end up believing it! --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Family tree of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley.gif listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Family tree of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley.gif, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * File didn't list. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Family tree of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley.gif missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Family tree of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley.gif

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Rubber science
Hi there, just to let you know that Rubber science has indeed gone to AfD. —  Richard  BB  07:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I'll take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update
Hey Mike Christie. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Precious again
  Super Science Stories

Thank you for quality articles such as Authentic Science Fiction, and for your good advice on How I survive Wikipedia, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (3 October 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 233rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Much appreciated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Minutes
Mike, if you don't mind, whenever the new version of the minutes come out, could you take less than a minute to update WP:WEF as I've done there? Best! Biosthmors (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea; will do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

peer review
Hi Mike. Can you please review and fix "Fluorine". If it's too long, just hit lead and one body section.-TCO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.137.171 (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've almost no time on Wikipedia at the moment and what little I do have that doesn't relate to the education initiatives is going to radiocarbon dating. Best of luck finding other reviewers.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Kudos on spending time on real life. Can I bargain you into a crumb?  We have a two para section that is half about fluorine relative dating.  Can you please review that?  Prose brush-up and any content that jumps out.  It gets the camels nose in the tent.  ;-)71.127.137.171 (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see the relevant underlying article is fluorine absorption dating, which I do have a couple of sources on. I've watchlisted that and may take a look at it in the future, but I think radiocarbon dating is going to take me several more months.  Sorry I can't be more helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Opting in to VisualEditor
As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 100 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, " ". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Ine of Wessex
This is a note to let the main editors of Ine of Wessex know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 7, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/November 7, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Ine was King of Wessex from 688 to 726. He was unable to retain the territorial gains of his predecessor, Cædwalla, who had brought much of southern England under his control and expanded West Saxon territory substantially. By the end of Ine's reign the kingdoms of Kent, Sussex and Essex were no longer under West Saxon domination; however, Ine maintained control of what is now Hampshire, and consolidated and extended Wessex's territory in the western peninsula. Ine is noted for his code of laws (Ine’s laws or laws of Ine), which he issued in about 694 (12th-century copy pictured). These laws were the first issued by an Anglo-Saxon king outside Kent. They shed much light on the history of Anglo-Saxon society, and reveal Ine's Christian convictions. Trade increased significantly during Ine's reign, with the town of Hamwic (now Southampton) becoming prominent. It was probably during Ine's reign that the West Saxons began to mint coins, though none have been found that bear his name. Ine abdicated in 726 to go to Rome, leaving the kingdom to "younger men", in the words of the contemporary chronicler Bede. He was succeeded by Æthelheard. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''