User talk:Mike Christie/Archive15

Stats
Hello Mike. I wanted to confirm a few things about the stats and graphs you posted at WT:FAC, and ask about something

a) In the last graph you posted, we are graphing the size of the WP articles that were submitted for a FAC review. Is this correct?
 * No, it's the size of the FAC page. There are some situations where it's not accurate -- restarted noms, which rarely happen these days and weren't ever that common, won't include the size of the pre-restart text; and in a couple of cases text has been moved to the FAC talk page.  I don't think these are material. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

b) Which of these sizes are we plotting:

Prose size (including all HTML code): 17 kB

Prose size (text only): 12 kB (2122 words) "readable prose size"?


 * I get the data via these scripts: User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js and User:Dr_pda/prosesizebytes.js. I run them on the individual pages listed from ToC I linked to -- so for example Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/February_2008 has an HTML document size of 1616kB.  Hence I have the values down to the month level, but not at the individual FAC level.  No doubt someone handy with scripting could run that script against everything FAC linked, but for my purposes the monthly average is fine anyway. For the same reason I'm not too bothered about whether the HTML document size is the right metric -- since it's being used to show changes over time, it doesn't matter what the metric is so long as it's consistent from year to year.  I don't have much choice, anyway, since the transclusions mean that there's no other truly indicative number obtainable from the script. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

c) In your table, the last column is the average size in KB of the featured article review of FACs. Is this correct?
 * The last column is the average size in kB of each individual reviewer's contribution. If there are 10 FACs with a total size of 660kB, and a total of 33 reviews are done across those 10 FACs, then the average review size that month is 20kB.  That's what that last column shows. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

d)Is there a list somewhere of FAC reviews by the closing date, or for that matter, by the nomination date?
 * Yes, it's the ToCs I listed to -- they go all the way back to the start of 2004. They're assembled over the course of a month by the coordinators, who move them here or here -- e.g. this is what's been archived so far in June.  There's no way to get a listing by date of nomination, although I do have that data and it will eventually be accessible in a database. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Any other questions, let me know -- it's nice to see the data get used. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * :) Used and misinterpreted by yours truly. Thanks for the clarification.  So, would you say, that your graph File:Average size of individual FACS graph through 2019.png, which I have successively smoothed (and disentangled) in three averaging windows, one of width 5 months, File:FAC moving average 5 FAC sizes March 08 to December 19.jpg,  the next of width 13 months, File:FAC moving average 13 FAC sizes March 08 to December 19.jpg, and the third of 25 months, File:FAC moving average 25 FAC sizes March 08 to December 19.jpg is purporting to show that broadly speaking, the FAC (overall review) size has increased over the last ten odd years, the promoted ones have increased more, and the archived ones less?  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's one of those cases where the conclusion has to be accurately phrased. There's no question that individual FACs are longer than they used to be, but looking at your 13-month graph, which I think strikes a balance between smoothing the data and eliminating interesting information, the archived FACs shrank for quite a long period -- around five years -- and shrank again for a couple of years fairly recently.  The lowest part for the archived line looks like it's around 24kB, and it's currently around 40kB -- a 67% increase in six or seven years.  Over that same time promoted FACs haven't grown in percentage terms nearly as much.  Of course in absolute terms the growth in promoted FACs is greater.  I also have to say that some of those fluctuations are very odd.  What on earth caused that giant peak in FAC size a year or two ago?
 * I can think of some possible explanations for various aspects of this data but I don't know that it'll be easy to quantify how much of these changes come from each possible reason. One is that the culture around opposing FACs has changed.   Some regular reviewers such as Ealdgyth or Laser brain would frequently -- I'd say more often than not -- start by opposing, and would only switch to supporting once the issues they pointed out were fixed.  Nowadays it's more common to start with "Comments" and enter an oppose only if convinced that something is unfixable.  For example, when I looked at the current FAC for Squirm, I didn't oppose; if no changes had been made I would definitely have opposed.  (It needs more work, but that's a different conversation.)  Once I or another reviewer would have started by opposing.  So has that led to fewer FACs getting archived early because of multiple early opposes?  And if more marginal FACs hence get a better chance of promotion, the only way to get archived is to be so bad that you get archived quickly, meaning the FAC is short.  That would account for the years of decline -- but not the subsequent growth!  Or here's another explanation: if three reviewers drop by in the first day to oppose for three different reasons, a FAC has very little chance of surviving more than a couple of days unless the nominator can work very fast.  With the lower review volume, a nominator typically has much more time to respond to the first oppose before a second one might show up -- so when a coordinator stops by, they see a struck oppose and another oppose that's being worked on, instead of three opposes, and they're less likely to archive.  Another possible explanation: we get fewer drive-by nominations from people who don't understand what is needed.  E.g. if higher standards have led to a nominating group that is able to work to a high level, we may look less like something that anyone can try for than we used to.  It was this sort of discussion that led to the implementation of the mentoring scheme. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * One more point: one of the few conclusions I feel confident in drawing from this data is about the effort level. If it takes X hours of work by nominators and reviewers to promote a FAC, then if we're seeing fewer FACs promoted we should expect that either X has increased (it has) or that the total effort expended at FAC across all nominations has gone down or both.  There was definitely a sharp drop in total effort after 2008, but I think the total effort level has been more or less constant for several years.  (There are some complicating constraints on effort such as the one-nom-at-a-time limitation, which limits the amount of effort a nominator can put in -- if you have a nom up that nobody is commenting on all you can do to help things along is review other nominations.)  This is why I don't agree with arguments that we should archive more quickly to keep FAC moving -- it's not the nominator's fault that reviews are not forthcoming.  More archiving means more effort expended on the same FAC, over and over, which is not a net benefit to the encyclopedia.  We also don't want to decrease the amount of effort needed to promote a FAC -- that's a proxy for quality -- perhaps not as good a proxy as we'd like, but the best we have.  So the only way to get more productive is to increase effort, and that means increasing reviews.  Most FAC reviews are done by nominators, so I would like to see a FAC culture that expects a certain number of reviews from every nominator -- not a quid pro quo, but the sort of culture we're all familiar with from our workplaces, where we all know who is pulling their weight.  The metrics I publish monthly are a way to encourage that, and I know at least a couple of reviewers have used those metrics as motivation.  When I complete the data extraction I plan to make a tool available that would let everyone see how many reviews each nominator has done.  (I've done enough analysis to know nobody is likely to be embarrassed -- the top nominators are mostly also top reviewers.)  I know it won't take us to a FAC utopia, but I think it will help a little. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing so carefully. I will go through your comments and reply very soon.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, it took me longer than I'd planned. What would you say to the following hypothetical FAC rules: 1) A reviewer is not allowed to comment in the FAC of a nominator in any other FAC of whose s/he has commented in the last two months. 2) There is no limit on the number of articles an editor can nominate at FAC, 3) FACs cannot be archived because they do not have the critical number of reviews, and 4) All reviewers are required to change their comments to "promote," or "oppose" (with clear guidelines for off-FAC improvement) no more than one month after they have opened their review. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm about to start work, so this will be short; I can expand on it later if you like. I don't think these rules would be a net benefit, though I can see what one might hope to gain from them. 1 would reduce the ability of reviewers to help with nominations, and 2 and 3 would increase the total volume of FACs, so all three would tend to slow down FAC.  4 seems unenforceable to me, and I don't think would necessarily lead to clear decisions as I assume you intend -- if it did work it might speed things up a little but I am very sceptical. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting, that Wikipedia, being a freewheeling community, 4 will not be enforceable because people will simply disappear, or not respond? If so, 4 could be extended: if no decision is made by a reviewer, then their comments are declared invalid and are collapsed in the FAC (though not the reviewer's status with respect to 1), and the number of comments in the FAC considered to have dropped by one; the changes made in the article as a response to the comments, however, are preserved. If the number of comments then has also dropped below the critical number needed for a decision, the FAC continues; otherwise, the Coords make their decision.  If the number of supports and opposes are deemed by the Coords to carry equal weight, then the closing Coord casts the deciding vote. If their vote is "oppose," then they too must offer some suggestions for off-FAC improvement.
 * The way I see it: 4 is meant to shift the burden from FAC to peer-review and other off-FAC venues; 1 is meant to help encourage more attention to the overlooked submissions, for if the reviewers (being mostly nominators, as you have assessed) are not able to review too many of each other's nominations as a result of 1, they will need to review the overlooked ones in order to (hopefully) pick up new reviewers for their own nominations later. It will create entropy at the outset but might achieve some form of homeostasis later. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I like the physics metaphors -- entropy, homeostasis. As it happens I've been casting about recently for ways to use physics to figuratively describe FAC; the best I've come up with is that a featured article is like a cup of hot tea.  The requirement for a minimum of three supports is a requirement for enough heat to boil the water (you can't make decent tea with water that isn't boiling).  Opposes are, rather neatly, pouring cold water on the FAC.  If there are lots of cups of tea with teabags in them sitting out waiting for the water to boil, then a limitation on the amount of heat (reviews) available clearly means we'll get fewer cups of tea than we had hoped.
 * Your rule 1 is a bit confusingly phrased; I took it means that if I have commented on nominator X's FAC, I must wait for two months before I can comment on any other nomination from X. Practically speaking this would be very difficult to enforce -- I wouldn't want the job of checking for every comment on every FAC whether it complied with the rule.  But suppose for the sake of argument that it could be done or that people simply complied.  I think there's very little evidence that people actually would review other nominations.  In terms of cups of tea, I think you're trying to avoid situations where half a dozen people put down their cup of tea and apply their heat only to each others cups -- clique nominating and reviewing, in other words.  I don't think there are significant cliques at FAC, though people certainly have preferences, and I think even if we got reviews more diversely applied we would also lose some reviews overall -- less heat available for making tea, in other words.  And I don't think it would generate fresh reviewing power from those benefiting from the redirected reviews, either, just based on my observation of behaviour at FAC.
 * Rules 2 & 3 mean more cups of tea waiting to be made, but no more hot water than we had before. Re 4: I think the kind of policing you're talking about would be very difficult in practice, but mostly I think it would be unenforceable in a very natural way.  Nobody is going to put "oppose" or "support" down on a FAC if they don't think it deserves it, and if they still have comments to make they'll continue to make them, and will uncap their comments if they need to in order to do so.  If we went around recapping their comments in those cases I can't see that doing anything but driving reviewers away.
 * I think the approach underlying your proposed rules is managerial, in that if it worked it would do so by directing resources to the areas that need it -- rule 1 makes for fairer distribution of reviews; 2 and 3 prevents any unfair distribution from penalizing those unfavoured by reviews; and 4 requires reviewers to complete the process, rather than letting it die of inaction. My belief is that managerial approaches are not easy to make successful on Wikipedia, where the resources are volunteers who tend to get shirty when told what to do.  Cultural expectations and community standing tend to do a better job of reinforcing the right behaviour.  I think your rules 1 and 4 are not bad things for any one reviewer to adopt on a voluntary basis, and if everyone did so we might get the benefits you hope for, but a rule would backfire. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to say that if I have to keep track of who's reviewed who's FACs, that would just add yet another burden onto the FAC coord's job, and frankly I'd consider resigning. It's already a pretty significant hurdle - if I'm to stay on top of things as people seem to want us to do, it's pretty much going to kill about half of my actual article editing just to try to stay on top of things. If you add to the burden ... I'd never edit articles. The need to keep track of who's involved in 1, plus the explosion in FACs that 2 would entail, would just ... make the workload impossible. And there is an upper limit of hte number of coordinators you can have also - too many and it becomes too many cooks in the kitchen. As for requiring source/image reviews before anything else - when I was doing a LOT of source reviews way back when, THAT ate a lot of my time and ... my article editing suffered. Source reviews done right take a significant chunk of time. I'm refraining from further comment on source reviews as currently conducted. Frankly, I don't think any of the above proposals would help at all. --Ealdgyth (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI, for the FACs I've tabulated so far (back through March 2008) you have done 1,959 source reviews, and a total of 2,152 reviews of all types. The only reviewer more prolific is Nikki, of course, with 3,385 total reviews; even she isn't close to your total of source reviews (she's done 1,290).  Brian did 980 source reviews.  Several others have done over 100, and of course those numbers may go up as I get more data from the oldest FACs.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Holy... F-word. I had no idea. Loki's beard, that's a lot. Gees. --Ealdgyth (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Congratulations, and thank you! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Since this is hypothetical, I was thinking 1 and 4 would be managed automatically by a program, not by the Coords. A reviewer would be able to see the FACs available for them to review, and only those would open for editing. Similarly, 2 and 3 would create a mess only if a Coord were actually poring over the list, but the automated system would tell them which article to close, and they would soon begin to ignore the list per se. The only purpose of the list would be for reviewers to view their choices, analogous to people choosing from a large menu, some items of which have been crossed out for them. As for being forced to make a decision, all reviewers of grant proposals have to make a decision in a fixed time.  They include some of the most creative people in academics. If they can be managed, surely Wikipedians can.  After all, Wikipedians are expected to comply with the 3RR rule, with MOS, and at FAC with the FA criteria. If the reviewers do not comply, their reviews would disappear, and they would not be able to reopen them. I was trying to imagine a system of rules (not as complex as self-organization) that might create a better overall order. It was just a thought.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I hadn't thought of it in the context of automation, but I agree that would address most of my concerns about it. I can see the argument for never closing a FAC without opposition, for example.  Interesting idea, but the automation seems an insuperable obstacle. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Break
Mike, I just saw this discussion from the link at FAC talk. There are some faulty assumptions above, and a lot I would address ... but the environment at FAC has become so hostile that I am not sure it would be productive to comment on the stories the data tells and the pieces I believe your data analysis miss. There were many fundamental changes made in 2008 and 2009 that I think you are missing and that are affecting your analysis, beginning with your statement about effort from 2008. The change there was because of source checks, copyvio checks, and the quicker ability to get the obviously deficient off the page, and had almost Nothing to do with the one at a time rule, which was mostly one editor plus some Wikicup participants. It is no longer possible to have a civil discussion over there, and while I agree that none of Fowler's proposals are workable, his analysis at WT:FAC of the problems was right. Without Ealdgyth’s source reviews, FAC is fooling itself and has become a fan club. Without Coords who know who is in what mutually supportive group, who is a content expert, who is reviewing what for whom, who is really an independent reviewer, and who won’t promote without that independent review, FAC has become a fan club where lengthy FACs result from groups doing their work at FAC, instead of pre-FAC, lending the appearance of review ... that isn’t a review at all. If I get time I will go back to your posts and data to point out areas I believe you are misreading the story I know the data is clearly telling. But it hardly seems worth it, since FAC seems to be more about egos than articles these days. That is one nasty page, and the coords seem disinclined to do anything about it. Bst, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I limit my arguments to what can be deduced from the data, which is why I mostly talk about review volume -- there's no debating that. Much of what you mention would require more digging to prove or disprove.  Are FACs being promoted with worse sourcing since Ealdgyth quit?  Are there mutually supportive groups who engineer promotions without independent review?  Does the attitude of the coords make a difference to the quality or quantity of the reviews?  I don't have conclusions on any of those, and if I have opinions that's all they are -- just opinions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I just do not understand why they will not intervene sooner in the contentious FACs. Discord grows. So, they refuse to use the old “restart” to send a message that “this behavior will not be tolerated”.  But they could move the obnoxious behaviors to the talk page of the FAC at least.  Something, anything, to send a message that the blatant hostility has to stop.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * (Apologies for the stream-of-consciousness) Well, you found out one reason why we don't intervene earlier - if you hat a discussion - half the time the disputants just unhat it and continue on their way. I don't see my role as a playground monitor - I see it as judging consensus to promote or not promote. If the FAC folks want me to be a playground monitor, then they need to speak up and ask for it. Another reason it's bad right now is ... well, pandemic. And I'm fighting a persistant something that isn't covid but because of covid I can't seem to get any doctor to want to deal with ... cold? sinuses? Whatever it is, it's sapping my energy. And then when I do have energy - I have to deal with crap at FAC. One side wants me to monitor constantly and stop behavior before it starts. Another group wants to not have any intervention and ignores anything we try. Yet other groups are determined to do whatever they want. The reviewing is ... well, I can't say what I think of the reviewing because I'm supposed to be impartial and judge consensus. And I get folks who seem to think I should have the time I had back in 2010 - which is not the case. I do not have that time to devote to FAC any more. Frankly, I need to concentrate on outside wikipedia projects that are much more satisfying, but I do feel some obligation to FAC and wikipedia so I'm trying to give back some time to it. But lately, the motivation isn't there because there's lots of people telling me fifteen different things and sniping at the other people and it's just demoralizing. Sandy - do you want me to do source reviews because no one else is? Or do you want me to be an FAC delegate and try to judge consensus. I can do one or the other, but not both. I do not have the time. And if I resign and do source reviews, it won't last if I don't have people backing me up ... the few times I've come back and tried to pick up source reviewing, I've faced so much flack from nominators without ANY support that I gave up. If folks want inadequately prepared noms to be opposed early and urged to withdraw - they need to back up the people who tried. has also faced some flack about opposing nominations in the past. I'm not a fan of the "peer review at FAC" trend but .. frankly, that's what all the reviewers seem to want and so it continues. Without support, it gets really nasty being the lone oppose (see Featured article candidates/Bikini Porn/archive1 or the Jill Valentine FACs...). To be frank, I'm tired, sick, and just generally run down with the whole pandemic thing and don't feel like it's worth it to stick my neck out to just have it attacked from all sides. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I dunno, dear Ealdgyth. On the one hand, every time I look in there I feel like the situation is so far gone and unfixable, that I wonder why I say anything.  I do have a sense that nothing can be done with the way these people interact.  How many years did I put up with TCO and various socks, without ever suggesting anyone be banned, or that we needed to go to ANI.  I felt all voices needed to be heard, civilly.  We seem to be beyond that point now, where there is no interest in the process, only ego, and no way to rein in the hostility.  Maybe it is time to call in ANI.  Ugh.  I dunno.  Let me ponder for a few days.  The only thing I do know is that it seems that Mike Christie is the only person they will listen to, and we really need Laser to get back in there, but I understand the COVID issue, so just do not know what can be done.  I understand you, empathize with you, and can tell you from experience, one grows tired of working tirelessly and selflessly for divas and prima donnas.  Give me a few days to ponder ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to let it go for a bit, hopefully I will get into a better frame of mind. If I posted over there now, I might just rage-quit, and that's not a solution. I am getting better, it's just... ugh. Tired. And the heat here is not helping. And deadlines, of course. Just... sucks getting old. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand, really :) Since they (thanks a lot, Tony1) eliminated the director position, there has been no way to address these issues, and you know we can't undo that.  Sigh. But I do wish Andy could get back in here to take some pressure off. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ealdgyth, I know I've said this before, but you're far too valuable an editor for us to risk losing. If you end up having to quit as coordinator that would be bad for FAC but it would be much worse for Wikipedia if we lost you as an editor.  I trust you to balance everything, but don't think you have to be a coordinator indefinitely.  And I think you've done an excellent job so far. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But, I do have one idea bouncing around my brain, but it is ill-defined, so thinking out loud. This is half-baked, but let's talk. It is an attempt to kill two birds with one stone. First, we have that stupid bot-set split to older FAC noms.  Well, they are ALL old these days, and that division is meaningless. I used to set that split manually, meaning personal intervention to weigh all factors (things like COVID).  I set it manually to a place that delimited the problematic from the routine.  I don't see what that marker is doing these days.  So, second, we have had multiple historical discussions about moving FAC to two phases (like FARC), and they were always rejected.  But now with the source review problem, maybe something like that would work.  So, combining the two problems, what if we eliminated the new v old marker, and instead had two phases to FAC, where we don't even move into content review until source, image and citation consistency are established in Phase I, and then Phase II is gets into the rest of the criteria?  Will that help stop the endless lengthy prose nitpicking when sources aren't even looked at?  I would have opposed something like this for years, but we seem to be at a place where we need to look at some sort of structural change.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * to this discussion, because my proposal engages a third concern: that just like you carried all the weight on source reviews, we have Nikkimaria carrying too much weight everywhere.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sandy, isn't that similar to the "FA source review" approach I suggested a couple of years ago? That got a fair amount of support, but not enough to implement.  Not sure if you saw it; the workshop is here, the relevant WT:FAC archives are 73 and 74, and the RfC was here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah ha! I see you were ahead of me, and I missed that (during my inactive phase?).  It is similar, but I would propose adding more of the basics to this pre-review phase, but strictly stopping the prose nitpicking craze until/unless the basics are in place.  Maybe you can rework this to make it slightly more broad?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't have the time at the moment to do anything like that, and probably won't for months. However, one of the suggestions made in opposition might be worth pursuing.  Rephrasing it a little: no formal process, but get an FA-level source review of the article done, and make it an ArticleHistory event.  If you then want to take the article to FAC, go ahead, and link to that review, plus a diff of the article since the review, to show that the sources haven't changed.  Perhaps require that the reviewer re-affirm in the FAC that the feel it passed.  Then there's no bureaucracy, no new process, no requirement for anything -- just another step you can take to prepare your article.  Not compulsory, but if it works well people might choose to do it because it would make their FACs go faster.  If it works the same thing could be done for images though I doubt there's a need. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Internet Archive is currently hosting lots of books that can be borrowed for an hour or more. This may not last for long, because they're being sued, but for now it's easier than ever to do spot checks. It seems to me that lots of editors not currently involved in FAC/GA etc might enjoy doing that, because all you have to do is determine whether sentence or paragraph X is reflected on the cited pages. We have lots of editors who enjoy checking things who might not otherwise be heavily involved in content. A call for those editors to do spot checks at FAC or an ArticleHistory event would be an interesting experiment. It could be promoted as an experiment for a month to see whether it makes any difference. SarahSV (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But we need to find a way to make this happen, because Sarah, to me the biggest problem is that the prose nitpicking happens before sources are even examined, so that by the time someone with a grasp gets to the FACs, they are so far along (often with a Support) that it is hard to get them closed. And in spite of Mike's disagreement that shutting them down sooner will help, I strongly assert that the biggest problem at FAC is the lengthy unworthy FACs that are sapping resources, chasing off reviewers, and causing a decline in standards. And these practices are supported by the caustic crowd that frequents FAC now. We need to force a way to get the unprepared off the page sooner, and to encourage those people to develop off-FAC networks and use existing processes (GOCE, PR, etc).  We used to have one person who held down the length of unworthy reviews (Tony1), but they chased him off too, just like Fowler. And I will always defend the principle that we can ill afford to lose any reviewer-- if we don't like what they say, ignore them and let the Coords decide. Of course, neither of those two  (Tony1, Fowler) did themselves any favors via their approach, either, but we need what Ealdgyth did (quick source review, so we could shut down the ill-prepared) and quick prose review, what Tony1 did, summarizing in a few examples why the article was ill prepared. Instead, reviewers comb through prose rather than saying, "not ready". Those are the two things no one is routinely doing, first and quickly, and the reason for the ill-prepared FACs being pulled through (and often passed on unworthy support).  Optional processes won't solve the problem.  I say we do need to formalize something; else see FAC continue to drop into meaningless oblivion and see our Coords give up, because it is truly unpleasant to be an unappreciated servant to prima donnas, which I came to see I was. Ealdgyth explained she was sick, pled for a few days, and immediately what we saw was literally a  "fuck you" response, unhatted with a personal attack in edit summary.  I do think it may be time for ANI. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You'll recall the table showing rates of promotion: 53–55% in 2008–2011, 59% in 2012, 60–64% in 2013–2016, and 73% in 2017. Mike said the figure for 2018 was 85% promoted. It would help enormously if the coords would shut down long prose reviews, but they won't, so people do those instead of content reviews (which involve looking at sourcing) because it's easier. Reviewers should recommend withdrawal if the prose really is that bad, and the coords should close down as soon as they see a withdrawal suggestion or should decide themselves to do it. But all this has been said for years. SarahSV (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep-- preaching to the choir. By the way, you need not dig such data out of archives-- I kept such data (and more) at Wikipedia talk:Featured article statistics. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sandy, have you considered coming back as a coordinator? SarahSV (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I am more useful as a reviewer (although I got too busy with the arb case and have not fully re-engaged yet, one thing after another in medical editing), the Coords need backup help because they no longer have Raul to take a stand when things get ugly, the “magic” when I was delegate came from the people I had doing the hard work (prose, source, copyvio, image, MOS reviews ... we really had a team), and finally ... what I said about being a servant to people you eventually realize did not appreciate that you sat at a computer for five or six hours at a stretch, for their star. There were many selfless editors in it for the content, willing to help others and the process, but more who were in it for star collecting, and I began to feel like an enabler. So the answer is ... NO. ;). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I can imagine that it would be very frustrating. It's really hard to know what to suggest at this point. I don't have the energy to try to fix any of it myself, so in a sense I have no right to comment. SarahSV (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Because the problem resulted from a pronounced— and now entrenched— cultural shift, I am not sure it can be fixed now. Those making the most noise are running others out, and they seem happy with the status quo. It is probably too late for structural change to help, and without a serious effort to rebuild a team that reviews every aspect, we have a process that is producing something, but not exactly FAs. Building that team took years— I do not know how to replicate that. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sandy, have you considered coming back as a coordinator? SarahSV (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I am more useful as a reviewer (although I got too busy with the arb case and have not fully re-engaged yet, one thing after another in medical editing), the Coords need backup help because they no longer have Raul to take a stand when things get ugly, the “magic” when I was delegate came from the people I had doing the hard work (prose, source, copyvio, image, MOS reviews ... we really had a team), and finally ... what I said about being a servant to people you eventually realize did not appreciate that you sat at a computer for five or six hours at a stretch, for their star. There were many selfless editors in it for the content, willing to help others and the process, but more who were in it for star collecting, and I began to feel like an enabler. So the answer is ... NO. ;). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I can imagine that it would be very frustrating. It's really hard to know what to suggest at this point. I don't have the energy to try to fix any of it myself, so in a sense I have no right to comment. SarahSV (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Because the problem resulted from a pronounced— and now entrenched— cultural shift, I am not sure it can be fixed now. Those making the most noise are running others out, and they seem happy with the status quo. It is probably too late for structural change to help, and without a serious effort to rebuild a team that reviews every aspect, we have a process that is producing something, but not exactly FAs. Building that team took years— I do not know how to replicate that. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Spaces
Sorry, I was editing away and noticed your edit too late. Personally, I don't miss that extra space after a full stop, but if you insist, I'll put it back in 1 by 1. Please just don't fully revert everything, as it really is just ballast. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I do prefer the two spaces but didn't notice any other edits? If I reverted anything else, sorry about that.  Aren't edits that don't change the visual appearance of a page discouraged, though?  I seem to recall something like that.  And I appreciate you taking the undo goodnaturedly.  I think other editors might also prefer two spaces (it's one of those things people have bizarrely strong feelings about) so it might not be a good idea to do a lot of edits like that anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't stray much into hard science, I'm usually sticking to archaeology and history. I was under the impression that the double space is a strictly American thing, which is neither good nor bad. Most full-stops on the page weren't followed by such, so I felt free to remove the second ones where they did occur. Shorter URLs are always welcome, as are other purely formal things that add irrelevant ballast to the page, but some editors do indeed like their spaces between the equal signs and the headings. So just ping me if any of it bothers you and I'll try to fix it back. Arminden (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Edward Thomas Daniell
Thanks for your FAC comments, now all addressed ( I hope). As you advised, I've contacted Ceoil as for feedback. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll look in a moment. Ceoil would be great if he has time and is interested, but I think he mostly edits at weekends only, so you may not hear from him for a few days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting Iridescent! Amitchell125 (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Sathi Leelavathi (1936)
Any future FAC plans for this article are toast thanks to your and 's comments. I'm not gonna berate you (sorry if it sounds like that, I'm just stating fact), I just want to know from you how far the article was from becoming FA, and if it is at least GA-worthy. I say this because Laser brain said, "I'd reject this for GA status" at the botched FAC, in spite of one of the best editors at the GOCE copyediting it. Hence, I've opened a GAR. Once again I apologise if I sounded like I was thrashing you since I bear no grudge towards you. After all you did help Andha Naal (nominated by me) get promoted. Just wish you'd comment sooner on Sathi Leelavathi. Besides, I've cancelled other FAC plans for life as an article's factual accuracy and coherence matters more. I hope you'll comment at the GAR. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  09:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll comment there; not sure how quickly I can get to it as I just started a FAC review last night. I know it's frustrating getting a bad review right at the end, particularly since FACs take so long these days. Thanks for the note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Manilal Dwivedi
Hello Mike Christie. Thanks for initiating the FA review of Manilal Dwivedi. I have replied to almost all the comments. I just want to clarify that I am not so good in English language. So please apologize if my language is confusing or if there are any grammatical errors in my replies. Feel free to ask me again, I will try to explain with the help of other. I have also requested you to suggest better wording at some points in FA review. As you suggested, I am going to add more biographical details into Biography section. Will do it by tomorrow. Thank you very much again. --Gazal world (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi -- I'm about to look at your answers. No worries on the use of English; I'll ask if I need clarification on anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Power outage
FYI to any watchers: Hurricane Isaias took out my power yesterday, and given that about a quarter of Long Island is now without power it could be up to a week before I can edit regularly again. Apparently this is the worst power outage since Hurricane Sandy, and that took up to two weeks for everyone to get power back. I can recharge devices at work so will be able to respond to some things but may not be very active for a while. and, I don’t know when I’ll be able to comment on your FACs again, so also pinging the FAC coords: and. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Take care Mike. --Gazal world (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a worry. Given the outages, I'll be taking a light hand at FAC for a bit. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Did I hear my name? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, we were looking for SandyNewYork. --Izno (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No! SandyConnecticut! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No! SandyConnecticut! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok I understand. I responded to your comments meanwhile. GamerPro64 21:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Stay safe. We will wait at FAC.-Nizil (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I got power back last night and should be able to start paying attention to FACs again within a day or two. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Source request
Hi Mike, hope you're doing well. I've been pulling together a stub about the 1976 anthology Aurora: Beyond Equality, and was wondering if you had access to any of the reviews listed here. I did see the message above about power outages, so please don't feel like this is urgent in any way. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 05:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry -- I did have the relevant issue of Galaxy, but I sold it last year, and I don't have any of the others. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking, it's much appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

In appreciation

 * Thanks. You get some credit too for the nudge at WT:FAC -- I probably wouldn't have reviewed without that! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * & Mike: My sincere 'thanks' to both of you. Mike's detailed and in-depth review made the article more precise. --Gazal world (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Squirm FAC ...
Featured article candidates/Squirm/archive1 - are you standing by your oppose? --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m out of town for 24 hours and may or may not have time to look at it again, but the points I listed were just examples and I don’t believe I’ve seen fixes that go beyond what I listed.   For an oppose like that I would ideally like to see other editors support later, otherwise it risks becoming a WP:FIXLOOP.  So yes, I’m afraid it stands. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Peer review/Squirm/archive1 here is its Peer Review. GamerPro64 02:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll look when I can. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Infinity Science Fiction
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 17, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/September 17, 2020. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Sathi Leelavathi
Thank you for helping the article retain GA status. We can begin FAC once my three articles – Deiva Magan, Apoorva Raagangal and Payanangal Mudivathillai – finish their GA reviews which have not begun. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  15:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ll plan on working on it after I’m done with Squirm. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 40
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 40, July – August 2020 
 * New partnerships
 * Al Manhal
 * Ancestry
 * RILM
 * #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
 * AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Super-Science Fiction scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Super-Science Fiction article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 24, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. It's at Today's featured article/October 24, 2020, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jim. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Eadbald descendants.gif


The file File:Eadbald descendants.gif has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused free use image with no clear use on the Wiki."

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. fuzzy510 (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

TFA
It always brightens my day to see you on the mainpage ! Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Sandy, just noticed this! Thank you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Magazine volumes in bibliographies
Hi Mike. I've been attempting to source Vonda N. McIntyre bibliography, and been running into issues where very many stories don't have full bibliographic information on the internet outside ISFDB. When stories are reprinted, the anthologies just refer to the magazine, and not to date and volume. Do you know of other sources that might connect stories to the volume and issue they were published in? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Phil Stephenson-Payne has an outstandingly good index at this page; it's absolutely a reliable source. I think I can find backup for that in SFE3 if you want proof it's an RS. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Would you prefer that over ISFDB, if you were reviewing at FAC/FLC? Or might it perhaps be useful to present both? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's probably marginally preferable to the ISFDB since it's not user-edited, though I think the ISFDB can be treated as reliable for what it includes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Good to know, thanks again. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Jstor
Due to a recent PC crash, I have lost access both to my jstor password and the email a/c used for retrieval. Yeah, I know and feel tick here. In the meantime, if you could get and email would appreciate a lot. My bad, um what can I say. Ceoil (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi — sorry, I seem to be having some trouble with Jstor too.  I haven’t used it in a while so I think my access has expired.  Maybe a TPS will be able to find it?  Or WP:RX is usually very quick for anything available on Jstor. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks anyway. Ceoil  (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * (talk page watcher) You can access JSTOR at TWL's My library without password. Cheers. --Gazal world (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Uncanny Tales (Canadian pulp magazine)
Hi Mike; I hope you're well. The logo image in this article has been nominated for deletion, as it is too complex to be PD. Seems I made the wrong call. You may want to replace it with a non-free cover, as I suspect (but can't remember) that this was what was in use before I uploaded the logo image. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No big deal -- I think it's hard to justify a fair use cover, so if the deletion goes through I'll just let it go with no illustration (there wasn't one before). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Far future
As our foremost subject-matter expert on SF, you may be interested and able to help us with this discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I've commented there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Quick question
Hello again! Apologies for the rather random message. I have a question about the "Inspired" (song) article. An IP user has been marking the song as a single although I have already cited sources in the article that support its status as a promotional single. I have already reverted their edit twice. In the first edit summary, I pointed out the existing sources in the article, and in the second edit summary, I encouraged them to open a talk page discussion to avoid edit warring. I know I should not revert their edit if they do it a third time. I was wondering if you had any advice on what I should do if this IP user continues making these edits on the page? Thank you in advance! I am sure the IP user means well, and I am always rather uncertain how to best handle these types of situations. Aoba47 (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's always a difficult situation. You might post a note on the article talk page quoting the sources and then if you end up reverting again, refer to the talk page discussion -- that's easier for folks to find than digging through the article itself to see what the sources say.  It's not an area I know much about, but it looks like you have three sources that support you so unless there's some substantive discussion you can be confident about reverting, always avoiding 3RR of course.  It's also possible that others have the article on their watchlist and will join any conversation, or you could post at a relevant Wikiproject to get more opinions -- more eyes on it is generally a good thing, since if they agree with you there's no 3RR and if they don't you can have a useful discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Aoba47, here's something I do that often works. We can't be sure that IPs understand to come to the talk page, or read edit summaries.  We know they see what is actually in the article.  So, when you've hit the revert limit but they haven't engaged, add something to the article that may get their attention.  In this case, a Template:Disputed inline provides a link to talk right before their eyes.  If they don't engage on talk, at least you can revert in a few days, hoping they have now understood.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the responses. I did not consider posting on a WikiProject, but I agree that it is a good option. At least one other editor has reverted a similar change in the article so I should remember that other editors have articles on their watchlist. And I should have realized that an IP user may not understand phrases like the "talk page" or be aware of edit summaries. I was unfamiliar with the disputed inline template so thank you for bringing it to my attention. It may be beneficial to me to write up something on the talk page and use the template to link to it for the future. Apologies again taking both of your time and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Another source request
Hi Mike, I've another source request, if it's not too much trouble. I'm trying to get a decent number of magazine reviews for Dreamsnake to fill out the commentary from scholars, etc; do you have to own F&SF, January 1979, Asimov's Science Fiction, September-October 1978, or Locus, #216 November 1978? All have reviews that I would expect to be decent. Thanks in advance; not a problem if you don't have them. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I owned all of them but all have been sold.  However, I think I have the Stableford review from Foundation 16, and the review in Galileo, so let me know if you would like me to dig those out of the basement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I managed to find Stableford; it's been digitized; and I also have the Orson Scott Card one, and the Nickerson one, of those listed here. I hoping for Clute, as a heavyweight in the field, but the Galileo review would be very helpful, if it's not too much trouble. I had some hopes of taking this to FAC eventually, but on an initial pass, the available material is a bit sparse... Vanamonde (Talk) 22:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sent. By the way, were you aware that the ISFDB also indexes author interviews?  See the bottom of this page; unfortunately I don't have that issue of Galileo, but it's going for only $2.50 on the web, and I don't have any of the others either. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also had a quick look on newspapers.com and I'm finding a few contemporary reviews -- do you have access? If not I can trawl through and take clippings. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have newspapers.com, that would be much appreciated (I've considered signing up, but for most of my work it's not very relevant...) I've a couple of other interviews on hand, including a recent one that's currently cited; but the index is good to have, thank you... Vanamonde (Talk) 22:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Newspaper clippings: here, here (a syndicated column I think; I'm pretty sure I saw that one in multiple papers), here, here, and here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

One other suggestion; I mentioned to my wife, who’s a fan of both Dreamsnake and The Exile Waiting, that you were working on the article, and she reminded me of Sarah Lefanu’s book In the Chinks of the World Machine, about feminist sf. We think it has at least some discussion of McIntyre, and a look on Google Books confirms that, though there’s not enough visible to tell how useful it would be. Do you have a copy? I used to own one but if I still have it I’ve no idea where it is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I still have lots of old issues of F&SF and Asimov's. They are not well-organised by date but I'll take a look to see how easy it would be to check... Andrew🐉(talk) 22:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be much appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I took a while to get back to this; I've been busy in RL. Thank you very much for the clippings; I will use some if not all of them. Do you know how different In the Chinks of the World Machine is from her 1989 Feminism and Science Fiction? I have a copy of that, and based on a google books preview there isn't anything different in the older book. It has some useful material, certainly, including a more direct comparison of McIntyre's first two books, and a more explicit analysis of Snake as a character. I'm now a little more hopeful of landing this at FAC eventually, though god knows there's any number of other things I need to do first. I'm sure you'll see it if it gets there. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * They're the same; one is just a retitling of the other, or at least so says the ISFDB. I look forward to seeing the article at FAC.  If you want a pre-FAC review, let me know when you think it's ready to look at. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Rescuing Far Future
Good start with. I recommend copying it to your sandbox and restoring it as soon as the fancruft mess is deleted, we will get a new article and maybe we can even WP:DYK it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Good idea; I've made a copy of it on my PC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I expanded Far future in fiction and started Near future in fiction. That's good news. Bad news - future history. Wonder if it shouldn't also be blown up and rewriten from scratch... sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

FAC opposes in September
Hi Mike, I was looking through your table of FAC opposes for September. There is only one oppose (from HĐ) that wasn't withdrawn. But I wonder whether you overlooked Featured article candidates/The Who by Numbers Tour/archive1. That opened on 23 September and was archived a couple of days later with two opposes. SarahSV (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting that; that is indeed a mistake -- sometimes when I do data entry in Excel it will take the "O" I type and pre-fill it as "OS", for oppose converted to support; I try to spot it when it happens but I'm sure I occasionally miss it. That's what happened here.  I'll repost with those two fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And in fact it looks like I missed (and have fixed) another one; there are four total opposes. With regard to your comment at WT:FAC, there are so few opposes these days from *anyone* that I think it would be hard to show anything statistically convincing about them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing this, and for compiling these figures every month. Your work is very much appreciated. You could be right about the last point, though. SarahSV (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
I am still proud of the TFA 1 September ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you today for Infinity Science Fiction, "about another minor science fiction magazine of the late 1950s. Its main claim to fame is for publishing Arthur Clarke's story "The Star", which was rejected by The Saturday Evening Post as blasphemous, but which went on to win that year's Hugo Award and is now considered a classic."! --

Signing so this will archive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

... and today for Super-Science Fiction, "about a minor magazine from the late 1950s. It wouldn't have had enough meat on the bones to get further than GA if it weren't that Robert Silverberg, a well-known sf writer, reminisced about it in the introduction to one of his collections of stories."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gerda. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

An Egg Cream for you

 * Thanks, and congratulations! Glad it made it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

GA review
Hello Mike. I have nominated my article Fasana-e-Azad for GA. Could you review it ? If you are busy, no problem at all. User:Oulfis had started the review, but he is inactive since almost one month. Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I'll pass on this -- I'm focusing on some other projects, and it's not an area I know much about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * O.K Mike. No problem. Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Science Fiction Monthly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roger Dean. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Page mover
Mike, it occurs to me that you'd find page mover rights useful if you ever need to clean up the FAC history of an article. I'd give you the flag in a heartbeat, but wanted to check whether there was a reason you didn't want it. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd forgotten that was a separate right; thank you! Yes, please do.  With great power comes great responsibility, so let me make sure I understand when to use it -- currently I can move over a redirect if there's never been anything but a redirect there -- is that the restriction?  And if I'm moving over something with more history than that, I need to make sure that that history is preserved somewhere else, e.g. if I'm swapping page A and page B?  Which would presumably require me to have a temporary page C that could then be speedy-deleted with the housekeeping tag, DB-G6? It looks like this is what I need to watch out for.  I doubt I'd need to merge page histories if I'm fixing FAC history pages, but if I do, that would require an admin's help.  Anything else I should know? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that's the gist of it; for history merges, you'd need an admin who knew what they were doing (I don't touch them). For round-robin moves (such as when two pages need to be exchanged) you don't actually need to tag anything for deletion, because the userright includes suppress-redirect, meaning you can simply uncheck the "Leave a redirect behind" box when moving whatever it was you had at C. I've just given you the flag, happy page moving. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Knap Hill
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 29, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/December 29, 2020. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 41
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 41, September – October 2020 
 * New partnership: Taxmann
 * WikiCite
 * 1Lib1Ref 2021

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Highest N for actionN on current FA
Mike, ipad typing ... could you look at the last thread at WT:FAR and tell me if you know of other high N FAs I should check? Most of the high Ns are defeatured ... eg, New York City ... might there be errors other than Jesus ? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. Here's every FAC between February 2007 and now with N >=7; let me know if you want me to list the 6s as well.  There are 20 6s and 38 5s, which of course will include everything below.
 * Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)
 * May Revolution
 * Ralph Bakshi
 * Randall Flagg
 * Real Madrid C.F.
 * S&M (song)
 * The Lion King
 * True Detective (season 1)
 * Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)
 * -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is just archiveN, in case that’s not clear; I don’t have data from article history, just the FACs. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I checked Baseball which was Action10 and it was OK, so I think SD ran the script only through N=10 ... so I need N for action, not archive, but these give me some to check ... thx, Mike ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, Holy Wood confirms at Action11 that the script only ran through N=10, as it lists the 10 date. Thx, Mike ... I will check the rest of these, and we will need to run a new script to locate any FAs with latest FAC or FAR greater than action N = 10.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey Mike!
I wanted to say thank you, and tell you that, you now have a lifelong fan. I hope you're okay with googly-eyed adoration. Oh, and send you this too:  I do remember correctly that you do have a sense of humor right?

Be safe, and please have a Happy Thanksgiving wherever you are!


 * Thank you! Much appreciated.  That's an interesting link; I hadn't realized that "criteria" treated as a singular was starting to make its way into edited prose.
 * Congratulations on having written an outstanding article. You probably know by now that the absolute hardest article to write (and get through FAC) is the summary of a large field.  That's why you almost never see articles like World War II or mammal or even football at FAC; it's much easier to write articles about individual football matches or battles or animals.  What you sometimes see at FAC is an editor who has nominated dozens of related specialized topics; they might fill in all the articles in a narrow field, then write the summary article.  Starting with the summary article, as you've done, is almost impossible.  It looks like you now have an excellent chance of getting it promoted, and that's very impressive.  And I should add I really enjoyed reading it; it's an area I knew almost nothing about and I enjoyed learning about the topic.  Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours as well; I hope you have a great day, and that biblical criticism is promoted to FA soon as an early Christmas present! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I hope it is promoted soon as well, but if that happens, it will not be impressive on my part, it will be impressive on the part of all the FA reviewers who showed up and worked so hard to make it happen. I think, if you totaled them all up, that the total number of edits from all of you must come close to all my input on this article.  Mike, Nikomaria checked every quote in the article for word for word accuracy. I left out "of" in one quote and she had to point it out three times before I could even see what she was talking about - and she never once yelled at me! Too much speed reading in my past for me to take note of little skip over words!  She checked and rechecked every quote when she could have just dumped me.  Truly I am humbled by all of you. You are a group of the very best of the best Wikipedians, and it's been a privilege just to hang out with you for a short time. If this article succeeds, the success will be a collaborative effort in every way.


 * I'm glad you enjoyed reading it. It's a dry subject to most people, and I tried to convey some of why I find it so fascinating. One of my undergrad majors was religion, and I specialized in ethics in grad school, and then taught. Now I'm retired and I write on WP on long articles on religion and philosophy - preferably those that have been heavily tagged that I can fix - which is how I found this one.  I love it, truly love it. I had some truly awful experiences on WP when I first got here, but you and your compadres at FA are the opposite end of that.  It's been an honor working with you.  Thank you again.  I hope we meet again some time. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I know we reviewers helped, and yes, Nikkimaria is an awesome editor, but that sort of help from non-specialists in the field only works if all that's needed is to push the article the last few yards over the line. Take a look at this (it'll take a minute or two to come up).  It shows exactly how much work everyone has done to get the article to where it is now.  You deserve the great majority of the credit, and the rest of us are glad to be part of the team.
 * What are you planning to work on next? Something less likely to be exhausting, I hope! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that Mike. The process of FA makes an editor feel very badly about the quality of their work - at least for awhile - then someone like you makes us feel better again. Detail work is not my forté, so this is challenging.


 * I put up another long and detailed article that had been heavily flagged up and took a good long time to fix for GA status that sat for 5 months and only got picked up here a couple weeks ago - right in the middle of this FA. I told that reviewer what was going on. but the GA has now been put on hold because of my inability to address quickly their concerns. I am working on that now.  It is the History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance - can you imagine Mike?  The history of 2000 years of Christian thought? It is an overlong article that I am thinking needs to be broken into 5 or 6 parts based on its different eras, then redone as a summary article like you said.  How would I go about doing that now that it is already under review for GA?  How do I create those separate articles and transplant the material then summarize in the original?  I have never done that.  The reviewer likes the article, and that's cool, but I am wondering now if you would go look at it, and tell me what I should do, that would improve the encyclopedia.


 * I am also beginning a collaboration with Gog the mild and am involved in a disagreement on Christian ethics where I have posted an Rfc. I am trying to negotiate with the editor in disagreement there - there are 7 of us who all agree and he is the only one who doesn't - and I am thinking a division of the article, with a renaming of the one here that he is so heavily invested in, is what's going to solve that problem as well. Maybe you could look at the Rfc on the talk page there and tell us what you think is best. Idk Mike, you may regret becoming my friend!
 * Don't worry about the RfC; someone will close it (or you can request a close if necessary) and until then you can just leave it be. I haven't looked at that article's history, but if you're dealing with an intransigent editor it's often best to proceeed slowly, and have something else you can work on while the process plays out.  I did see you're working on something with Gog; as I recall it's a specialized topic and with Gog collaborating with you I'm sure that one will go smoothly.
 * History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance could be a monster! I have a couple of suggestions there.  It looks like you have a thoughtful and committed GA reviewer, so you might want to push on with the process and get it to GA.  I would recommend not nominating anything else for anything until you're done with both the FAC and the GA nomination.  Then what do you actually want to work on most?  You clearly have the academic background to do the difficult high-level articles in these areas, and that's probably also more satisfying to work on than some detailed article such as the late Roman empire's treatment of non-Christians.  However, it would be be a very stressful approach, and it's much more likely to make you want to quit Wikipedia.
 * If that's what gets you to sit down at the keyboard then I would say to carry on, but the less stressful approach is worth considering. Take a topic you want to expand coverage on, and figure out what the set of articles would be to provide coverage of that area, and work on some of the lowest-level articles first.  Suppose history of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance could be covered with six sub-articles: you could write as many of them interest you, and take any of them to FAC or GAN as you go.  Usually what happens to prolific editors is that they have a backlog of articles ready for FAC or GAN, because they write faster than those review processes cycle through, but that's OK -- you have still improved the article.  Eventually you can go back to the summary level articles, by now having worked with some of the other editors interested in those areas (if any), and fortified by the FAC or GAN reviews of the specific sub-areas which may help hash out any difficult points.
 * Personally I find that having two or three different areas to work in is worth it -- I switch back and forth between old magazines such as The Thrill Book and archaeological articles such as Knap Hill, and a few other things, and I also spend a fair amount of time reviewing other people's work, which is interesting in its own right and is also a way to give back to the community -- the community has helped me improve my own articles and I want to return the favour. So you might find various areas that you feel like working on and go back and forth between them, and you should also consider becoming a reviewer sooner or later.
 * My main advice is to do what you enjoy here; if you don't, you will eventually not want to stay -- which would be a terrible shame. We need more editors like you -- experts in an area, willing to collaborate and learn, and good writers.  There are not enough editors like that for us to be wasteful! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Mike Christie! Mike Christie!!  My GA has passed!  And on my Rfc on Christian ethics, we were able to work out a compromise and a new approach where we can work together on the changes it needs!  Isn't that awesome?!  Two down, two left to go!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Let's hope for a clean sweep of all four. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Mike Christie! If you can find the time, please come and do a spotcheck of the sources at BC. Someone is claiming there are all kinds of problems, yet Nikkimaria went through them all meticulously and passed them. The person making this claim has not done any spot-checking of their own, so if you would, that would matter I think. Please help if you can. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , really, Jen? Who is the "person making this claim" who "has not done any spot-checking of their own"?  Before spreading such accusations, maybe you will finish the conversation you started on my talk page?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay this is really inappropriate. I have answered in the discussion I started on your talk page before coming here. There are no accusations in anything I said here, just fact. I invited you to do those spotchecks that are not about formatting, and am now closing this discussion.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, both; sorry to see the two of you disagreeing. Sandy, I didn't look at the article before it was nominated, and probably wouldn't have if Jen had asked -- I was pretty busy at that time -- so I can't say what shape it was in when it was nominated.  I see Nikki did a ton of work, but since she's now said it's a pass on source review I believe her.  I know it's true that the more review you can get done before FAC the easier the FAC will go, but a big topic often gets a major workover at FAC no matter how much prep is done.  I think the article is improved by the FAC and I think Jen's next nomination will probably be in better shape because of what she learned from this one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW I didn't compare every single source to the text - I don't have access to all of them, and really a "spotcheck" isn't meant to go through all of them. I did check more than I usually would in a spotcheck, probably about 60–70%. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020
Mike, if I may trouble you, get thee over to WP:URFA/2020 and add a "Satisfactory" note to your older FAs that you have watched and that are still at standard. They don't have to be perfect; we need to sort out which of the very old FAs need to go to WP:FAR, and which would be an embarrassment if run on the mainpage. If you indicate which of yours are "Satisfactory" (good enough), other editors are then triggered to look in, and get those moved off the list, so we can focus on the truly deficient (which are typically those that are no longer watched by their nominators). Bst, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I should be able to update the older ones some time over the Christmas break -- nag me if you don't see any progress by early January. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha, you assume I will remember :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Cite Unseen update
Hello! Thank you for using Cite Unseen. The script recently received a significant update, detailed below. If you have any feedback, requested features, or domains to add/remove, don't hesitate to bring it up on the script's talk page. Thank you! ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 23:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You can now toggle which icons you do or don't want to see. See the configuration section for details. All icons are enabled by default except for the new Yes Check Circle.svg generally reliable icon (described below).
 * New categorizations/icons:
 * Font Awesome 5 solid bullhorn.svg Advocacy: Organizations that are engaged in advocacy (anything from political to civil rights to lobbying). Note that an advocacy group can be reliable; this indicator simply serves to note when a source's primary purpose is to advocate for certain positions or policies, which is important to keep in mind when consuming a source.
 * Hand-33988.svg Editable: Sites that are editable by the public, such as wikis (Wikipedia, Fandom) or some databases (IMDb, Discogs).
 * Book X red.svg Predatory journals: These sites charge publication fees to authors without checking articles for quality and legitimacy.
 * Perennial source categories: Cite Unseen will mark sources as Yes Check Circle.svg generally reliable, Achtung-orange.svg marginally reliable, Argentina - NO symbol.svg generally unreliable, Stop hand.svg deprecated, and X-circle.svg blacklisted. This is based on Wikipedia's perennial sources list, which reflects community consensus on frequently discussed sources. Sources that have multiple categorizations are marked as Question Circle.svg varied reliability. Note that Yes Check Circle.svg generally reliable icons are disabled by default to reduce clutter, but you can enable them through your custom config. A special thanks to, whose new Sourceror API provides the perennial sources list in a clean, structured format.
 * With the addition of the new categorizations, the Scale icon unbalanced.svg biased source icon has been removed. This category was very broad, and repetitive to the new advocacy and perennial sources categorizations that are more informative.

You are receiving this message as a user of Cite Unseen. If you no longer wish to receive very occasional updates, you may remove yourself from the mailing list.

Best wishes for the holidays

 * Thanks, and season's greetings to you too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Greetings of the season

 * Thanks! Holiday wishes to you too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Natalis soli invicto!

 * And yours too. Hope we see more of your work at FAC this year. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead and give me the scary news...
Here or my talk page is fine. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Me also Mike! Although it'll be barren compared to Ealdgyth I'm sure, its great than unsung people like her are finally revealed, via hard numbers, as to their value. Ceoil  (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, on your talk page. I think we're almost all under-achievers compared to Ealdgyth. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sound. And yup. Ceoil  (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays

 * Thanks, Ceoil; all the best of the season to you too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

FAC reviewing stats
Hi Mike, I hope you had a great Christmas? If you could post my FAC reviewing stats to my talk page when you get a chance, that'd be appreciated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, an excellent Christmas, and I hope yours was good too. Posted on your talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think someone else suggested posting some ratios of noms/reviews. Would be interesting, as I try to do three reviews for every nom, but I think, without putting too fine a point on it, there may be some passengers... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be a risk, certainly. If/when I can make the data into a tool page anyone can look at for themselves, I think it would be a good idea to suggest people track their own ratio.  That might avoid the risk of fake reviewing.  Three reviews per nomination is good, but I'd encourage you to increase the number -- it takes at least five reviews to promote a FAC, after all, and the average number of reviews per FAC is probably more like six or seven. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I take your point, but looking at FAC reviews in isolation doesn't take into account the lower-level reviews that have helped develop an article to the point where it is ready for a FAC nomination. This is particularly the case where a fairly robust A-Class process is in place that takes another five reviews. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 04:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fair. Given that a lot of newer FAC nominators are shy about reviewing, I think the regulars are the best bet to get more reviews done, but I can see it's not entirely fair to only measure FAC reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Mike, are you able to draw conclusions (yet) about the leading opposers? Opposing was once the quickest way to see an article get the star, yet in today’s environment, even I am afraid to Oppose. I continue to believe that (and the intimidation that brought that on) are plaguing FAC. Did I oppose as often as I recall, or is that my imagination? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I should have some oppose numbers today though I don't know exactly what I can pull together yet; I'll post at WT:FAC when I have something. As of right now, just going on what I saw as I read through, you and Tony are the two leading opposers by a long way -- often in tandem, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Mine won't be complete until you get back to June, but if (as I recall) I am one of the highest opposers, that really says something, since there were rare occasions when I took off my FAC hat to Oppose between 2008 and 2012. That means most of my opposes would have been 2006 and 2007.  To get an idea of how much Opposing has changed, it would be interesting to use me as an example and see the proportion of my opposes broken up into three periods: a) before I was delegate, b) while I was delegate (2008 thru Feb 7 2012), and c) after I was delegate.  The idea/entitlement that all FACs will be pulled through, and that they are rarely archived, is what concerns me. Nominators are now offended by archivals, which were once routine.   Separately, the times that I opposed while I was delegate meant that I was dismayed that reviewers weren't picking up on something significant, and had supported articles with significant issues, so I took my FAC hat off to deal with it (two samples that come to mind are Featured article candidates/School for Creative and Performing Arts/archive1 and Featured article candidates/Oliver Typewriter Company. Both eventually promoted.  This ties in with a separate point that I only saw yesterday in archives, from a discussion during the period I was absent, here. I can't speak for Ian Rose and Sarastro1, but I don't tend to follow nominations closely unless they are particularly controversial—I read through them comprehensively only when I begin considering action on them. This was more of Raul's approach but I'm well aware that Sandy in particular would spend hours (sometimes each day) combing through nominations and looking for issues. ... Laser I sure did :) I tried not to let off-topic or civility get out of hand.  I used the "move to talk". I am worried that the results of some RFCs were, and continue to be, overstated and overinterpreted, and might need to be revisited.  At what point did we switch from the idea that it was the delegate/coordinator responsibility to make sure all aspects had been reviewed, to the idea that if something was neglected it is not their job to flag it, their ONLY task was to judge consensus? What a detriment to FAC which was once known as the place where the buck stopped. Not only did I deal with inappropriate behaviors, faulty use of templates, moving off-topic to talk, unactionable commentary ... as soon as I saw it ... if I saw that a FAC had multiple Supports and looked "ready" for promotion, but there were outstanding issues that no one had reviewed for ... obvious prose issues, or a MOS review had not been done, or I could spot any other issue that no one had addressed or reviewed for ... I flagged that as needing attention before promotion. Have we really disempowered Coords from being able to do that today? Have we really moved to a model where reviewers only option to the Oppose is to remain silent (I admit to feeling bullied into silence myself on problematic noms, and there are probably at least ten on the page right now that I would have oppose in different times), and Coords are forced to promote without stating that something has not yet been looked at, because we have so hamstrung then based on interpretations of RFCs?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I generally try to at least make sure that there are non-"involved" reviewers that have supported and that we have an FAC looked at by someone who is one of our stronger reviewers. If I see major problems, I'll usually recuse and start reviewing myself (as you can see from today). But if there are huge piles of supports ... it's hard for others/coords to say "hold on" without people holding each others back. I got burned a couple of times while you were gone and that's made me cautious... I didn't need stress from FAC for a long while, but thankfully with the move done, I'm not as worried about my stress levels. But opposes really DO kick up hornets nests recently and if we want to rejuvenate the placing of opposes, folks need to support those opposes (what a weird thing to type!) so that the opposer doesn't get bullied into removing it because of piling on. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I will try to be more vigilant overall, but I am simultaneously working to re-invigorate PR, re-invigorate FAR, get WP:URFA/2020 off on the right foot, and clean up the massive amount of messes made on talk pages since Gimmebot was chased off by the same combination of forces that caused this change in FAC. Trying to do a little bit of everything, and honestly ... I do feel encouraged that some of it seems to be beginning to work.  I still don't understand the notion that Coords can only judge consensus; they for sure should be empowered to flag up issues that no one has even looked at, move off-topic to talk, and deal with people beating up on reviewers.  And the intimidation factor is serious.  I happened to see one older FA because it was going to run TFA in the same month as Tourette syndrome, and saw that there had been no MOS review, and that the article was rife with MOS issues shortly before it was to run TFA.  (And this was shortly after Ceoil was taken to task by a GOCE editor for MOS issues in an art article about to run TFA.)  My comments about the MOS issues on talk were met with extreme resistance by the nominator, who insisted that the article had been reviewed at FAC, so my comments had no bearing. And the nominator appeared to take it personally and was offended.  And naturally, the FAC supporters showed up to back that. That no one had even reviewed the article for MOS issues before promoting it was moot, as far as they were concerned. That nominator now has a FAC up that I won't go near.  I do hope someone is checking it for MOS issues.  And I do hope we will do something about intimidation of reviewers.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year

 * Thanks, Jen! Same to you! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Knap Hill, "about an Neolithic site on a hill in northern Wiltshire. It's a causewayed enclosure, one of the major types of Neolithic earthwork, and is historically interesting as it's the first one that was excavated to the point where the characteristics of a causewayed enclosure could be clearly seen -- an encircling ditch and bank with many more entrances, or causeways, than made sense if the earthworks were for defence."! - If my card 1 or card 2 speaks to you, take it, with best wishes for a new year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Gerda. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Knap Hill

 * Thanks! I hope to bring a couple more causewayed enclosure articles to featured level, so you may see more of them one day! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

FAC review request
Hi Mike, I hope this finds you well. I was wondering if I could interest you (or any tpw who may see this) in commenting at Featured article candidates/O Captain! My Captain!/archive1. I'm loathe to request favors, but it seems that nobody is very interested in giving it a review and the co-ords have suggested that it may be in danger of getting archived. Hope your holidays are pleasant and I wish you and yours all the best as we enter a new year. Please don't feel obligated to comment-- I can only imagine how busy you must be, but I'd greatly appreciate it if you did. Thanks for all the hard work you've put into content work this year. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I will probably have time to look in the next day or so -- maybe in the morning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Christian ethics
Hello Mike Christie! I am hoping you and yours had such a wonderful holiday season that you are in a good mood! If so, I have just completed a rewrite of another monstrously long article, and will eventually post a request for a peer review, but it sure would benefit from a once over from you before that. Don't worry - not intending FA - just looking to improve quality. It needs polishing with a fresh eye. If you don't have time, I understand. I still hope you are well and happy! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi; I had a great Christmas and hope you did too. I can look it but it will be a week or two, at least; I owe half a dozen FAC reviews at the moment.  If I haven't started posting comments there by the end of the month nag me.  What  else is in your sights?  Any chance you'll tackle something a bit less gigantic next?  It would be nice to get something to FA level but these giant articles are very difficult to get promoted .... Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I know! I have learned that the hard way!  I will not bring another one to FA, I promise.  I have worked on several of these however.  Pretty much anything to do with Christianity as a whole ends up huge. I will probably ping you back sometime just to say hi and see who else besides me is making you crazy these days. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If I'm crazy it's because I always have been .... Isn't there some smaller article you could take on? I haven't looked yet, but I would guess Christian ethics is going to have to conform to summary style, so there must be subarticles that could be taken to FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha ha! I'm sure there are, but what would be the fun in that?  It's sort of like, "why are you attempting to climb Mt.Everest?"  Because it's there!  I just recently took History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance to GA after several months on it.  Talk about a long article!! But I took one look at the title - I mean really, a history of Christian thought??? - and I was hooked. :-) It's probably a kind of mental illness with its own name and subset and everything, but what can I say? If I'm crazy it's because I always have been.
 * I love what I do here, really. I will spend hours and hours researching a single point, reading entire books. and journal articles I would otherwise miss. I get to read, and write, in my field of study, and in connected fields, and meet other crazy people like me - who do this just for the love of it! What could be better? :-) And besides, you know that even if I split these articles, I would no doubt end up feeling that meant I could add more detail - enough to make each of them too long again! Because I'm hopeless! But I will say that, if you look at it and really think it should be split, then chances are I might actually listen to you just because it's you saying it. Don't tell anyone else. There are a few people I'm willing to take advice from. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean -- the research is fun in itself, and in some ways it doesn't matter whether you get it reviewed or featured or made a good article. I've certainly written articles that I've never taken to GAN or FAC.  I guess the only real advice I would give you is that if you do go to FAC again, take a small article first, in order to limit the amount of work that will be needed, so you can get the experience of going through it successfully.  Looking through the Christian ethics article I can see lots of interesting subarticles -- Christian views on slavery and problem of evil are two that caught my eye, but I think each of those is probably a giant article in itself, if properly done.  How about a biographical article about one of the key figures in one of these areas? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You know what? I have never done a biographical article!  Most of the dead people already have articles but not all the living ones do.  That's probably a great idea, and maybe doing that would help me get over my "no more FAC" block. I will mull that over and see if there is anyone 'worthy'.  Thanx Mike.  If nothing else good came out of FAC for me, I learned some stuff and met you and Gog, and that was worth it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Hastings
I believe you are being very possessive over this article. Why would you revert an editor acting in good faith? A minute ago I added an additional reference to Battle of Hastings: William of Jumieges as I noted it is an important source for the battle but is not in the reference list. And you reverted it. It's a good job I save my work. Djp.mortimer (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The reversions of your work (which is visible in history so you don't have to be concerned about losing your work) are not because you are wrong but because you do not have consensus for the changes. Per WP:BRD if you are reverted you should discuss the change instead of re-adding the edit.  If you have not read WP:3RR you should do so, although I suspect you're about to find out about it the hard way.  Either way, discuss the change, reach agreement with other editors on the talk page, and then whatever is agreed on can be added.  Neither you nor I control what goes into that article, and nor does anyone else; consensus is the way things are intended to work, not edit warring. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Status...
We just left the terminal with our next load and are going to be bouncing thru Indiana for the next few hours. Impossible to get out laptop, much less deal with the above. Any 3RR reports will have to be done by someone else ...I’m doing this on my iPad...Ealdgyth (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite honestly...this just reminds me of how it sucks to produce good content and then watch someone with less than 200 edits trash it while I’m unable to deal with the situation fully. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I sympathize. I was halfway through a 3RR report when I had to leave the PC; heading back there now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Now done. I really should learn how to use Twinkle; that took far too long. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have it, but it doesn’t like the iPad....and now that I’ve pissed off more FAC regulars...Ealdgyth (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You have? I shouldn't ask, but who/where? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * TRM and Sandy...and I’m about to hit more bad sections of I-65 so I give up for the day. We’ll see how the sections past Indianapolis are today...Ealdgyth (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This ex-FAC regular is not pissed off :) Just, yea, stuff needs to come out in the open so it can be dealt with. I will let things cool for a day or two, and then (once again) attempt to approach TRM on his talk with some ideas about how to move forward. That's the best I can offer :)  He appears so agitated right now, that I don't think the time is right for seeing another of my talk page approaches deleted. See edit summary.  Stay safe out there!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Pre-FAC review?
Hi Mike, when you have some time, I'd like to take you up on your offer, if still available, to look at Dreamsnake before FAC. I hope you don't mind that it's also at GAN; wait times there are often measured in months... Vanamonde (Talk) 23:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure; I should be able to do the GA review unless someone else picks it up first. I might have time to look at it later today but I'm not sure. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be quite nice; I was under the impression you generally stuck to the rarefied atmosphere of FAC, else I may have asked for that directly...Thank you, and no rush whatsoever. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to do more GA reviews; I've done quite a few but in bursts -- I don't remember when the last one was. I started looking at the article and checked for sources I have you might have missed, and found nothing so far.  More later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike, a quick question before I go to FAC with this; I've used an interview of McIntyre's with Io9 for some setting-related detail that I felt to be useful; but one could argue it's not a "high quality" source as demanded by FAC. How do you feel about it? Also, as an aside, I started Sarah LeFanu; it's brief, because I haven't the time, and biographical detail (as opposed to analysis of her books, most of which are likely independently notable) is hard to come by; but it's a start. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice to see the Lefanu article! That source is only used for the "internal chronology" sentence, right?  It seems to be a Gawker media production, with editorial control; I think it's OK for what you've used it for -- the parent company is not fly-by-night, so I believe they're reporting her words accurately, and it's not a controversial point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yes, that's all it's used for; I generally try to steer clear of blog-like sources, but I've found that a surprising number of interesting interviews come from the more obscure publications. I'll nominate at FAC shortly; if you have further comments, they would be most welcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Whitehawk camp excavation plan 1929 and 1932-1933.png
Thanks for uploading File:Whitehawk camp excavation plan 1929 and 1932-1933.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Whitehawk camp excavations 1929 and 1935.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Whitehawk camp excavations 1929 and 1935.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 42
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 42, November – December 2020 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
 * New EBSCO collections now available
 * 1Lib1Ref 2021 underway
 * Library Card input requested
 * Libraries love Wikimedia, too!

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Fantastic titles grid.png


The file File:Fantastic titles grid.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Replaced by wikitable in the article."

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 01:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, should really have prodded this myself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

In appreciation

 * Me, too, appreciation! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Cursus
Hiya I have this nagging question about whether the racecourse at Whitehawk is sited on a former cursus heading towards the causewayed enclosure. This isn't a comment that needs to go on Whitehawk Camp because I've never read anything to suggest it, but I just thought I'd drop you a line since you've probably read all the available documents and I was wondering if you'd seen it mentioned anywhere. Nothing remains today, it's just an intriguing thought inspired by visiting sites in Cumbria and Yorkshire from around the same time period. Cheers! Mujinga (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi -- I've not seen anything about a related cursus monument at Whitehawk, either under the racecourse or otherwise. The racecourse is old enough that I doubt there are any records that would shed light.  If it ever goes out of business then they can dig it up, or a resistivity survey might be interesting -- or might just be frustrating if they find signs of something they'll never be able to investigate! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Case closed ... for now! Mujinga (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I’ll try to weigh in....
Later when we get to the unload. After my lazy self does a lazy or something. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I know some people will support the idea but there was reasoned opposition last time and I want to make sure that gets discussed this time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Currently scarfing down excellent Mexican food...
But Isento did apologize on my talk page. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it. (I would say I'm envious but my Texan wife makes the best tortillas I've ever eaten.)  I saw somewhere the mention that you'd been called lazy (!) and went and found the reference; I don't usually dive in to those sorts of conversations but for a nominator without much experience at FAC I think it's worth trying to make them aware of how the place works.  I can see that if the only FAC you've ever read is your own you might find reviewers annoying. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, Isento previously edited as User:Dan56, that's on the user page. Under that name he had 27 FAC nominations. While I have you here... any chance we could get the nominator list query to output as sortable columns? -- Ealdgyth (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hadn't realized that; I've just updated the data. They haven't reviewed much at all, I see.  Re sortability: HTML doesn't support sorting natively; you have to implement it with Javascript, which I can do eventually.  In the meantime, if you select and copy the whole table (make sure you click outside the table and release outside the other end of the table when selecting) you can paste straight into Google Sheets or Excel and sort there.  What I can do faster than the Javascript is make the selection page give you the option of sorting on one of several of the columns.  I might be able to get that done tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 03:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't rush. I'm still out for another 11 days and then hubby is going to be home until the 22nd, so I'm still limited to the poky laptop (this is what I get for buying a cheap business one .. heh). I may pick your brain about toolforge sometime... I assume you're doing queries on a database? I have ... ooodles (very technical term horsepeople use for "lots and lots") of horse data that i might want to make searchable for folks at some point... right now it's either in google sheets or in FileMaker databases... Ealdgyth (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Turned out to be fairly easy; done. Pick away -- toolforge itself is just for Wikimedia projects but I can tell you how to run something like this for yourself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 04:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)