User talk:Mike Christie/Archive18

FA review for Li Rui
Hello! I nominated Li Rui for FA status, but the review is now at risk of being archived because there have not been many comments. Would you be willing to jump in and share your thoughts on the article? You previously were a reviewer for one of my other two FAs (Mary Jane Richardson Jones), which I really appreciated. Thank you! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't promise anything but I might be able to look at it later today. I just took a look at 李锐_(1917年) and it seems a little longer; are there sources there that you could use? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, totally understand. Yes, there's definitely some information in the Chinese article not in the English one, for a few reasons. Some of it is just unsourced, so that can't be carried over. There's some information from Chinese-language sources I'm not really able to assess the reliability of (such as the Yueyang City Information Network, a few blogs), and finally some information from his memoirs, which regrettably I'm not able to read and are not available in English. I don't like to rely on Google Translate when reasonable, secondary, reliable English-language sources are adequate instead. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm going to try to finish up a long GA review today and will see if I can get to it after that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail

 * Replied.
 * Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

John Green GA Review
Thank you for such a thorough and thoroughly enjoyable GA Review! You are a phenomenal editor, and I appreciate you taking the time to so completely review such a long article. I intend to integrate any remaining FA-level changes you suggested, and perhaps one day, shepherd it on to that level. In the mean time, I appreciate all the help and education you provided. Best wishes! Cerebral726 (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I appreciate the compliment.  Would you be interesting in doing some GA reviewing yourself?  Your responses and your very thorough validation of the spotchecks tells me you'd be an excellent reviewer, and there's always a backlog at GAN. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am very interested in doing that. My goal was to get a couple more under my belt from this side of things before doing that, and I'm glad I did since I learned a lot from the Green GAR. I'll start checking out the reviewing instructions and pick up one once I know I have the time to get it through in a reasonable time frame. Thanks for the suggestion/vote of confidence! Cerebral726 (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it! When you do try reviewing, feel free to ask if you have any questions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanos FAC
Hey Mike. Since you have FAC experience, I was just wondering what kind of things I'd need to add, remove, etc. before I consider nominating Thanos. --  Zoo Blazer talk 03:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You might take a look at some recent FACs on pop-culture topics to get an idea of how it goes, but here are some suggestions.
 * Scrutiny of the sources at FAC will include consistent formatting, which is not an issue at GAN. It will include some spotchecks, and the standard for sourcing is a bit higher.  I don't recall seeing anything that was a marginal source in the GA review but if another reviewer does the source reviewer they may have questions about some of them.  A source reviewer should also click every single link and verify they all work; a dead link is not a problem at GAN but a dead link with no working archive link is a problem at FAC.
 * The prose quality gets more attention at FAC, and because there are multiple reviewers, there are nearly always changes requested. I did some copyediting as part of the FAC, and I think the standard is fairly high in the article now, but a copyedit wouldn't hurt, either via GOCE or any editor you know who you feel has strong prose skills.
 * You might consider putting the article up for peer review. How much feedback you get at PR is very variable, and you might get none, but if you do get a good review that often translates into a support at FAC which is helpful.  You could also post a note on the talk page of any reviewers who've recently nominated articles at FAC on similar topics, asking if they would be willing to comment at the PR. You can see a list of recently promoted FACs here.
 * You could try posting a note at WT:FAC asking for a mentor (see the mentor program described at the top of that page). A mentor will go through the page before it gets nominated and work with you to get the article ready -- a pre-FAC review at the FAC level.
 * When you do post the nomination I will do my best to review it. I'm keeping pretty busy with GA reviews at the moment but I should be able to find time to read through it again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the feedback. I think the one thing I'm pretty confident on is the consistent format for the refs because I worked on that before the GAR. I'll still go through the entire article again though. I was considering putting it up for peer review already, so I think I'll probably definitely do that now. --  Zoo Blazer talk 17:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I did notice a couple of minor source formatting issues that I didn't mention during the review. The only one I can recall is that in a couple of cases you have a domain name (xxx.com) instead of the website name in the website/work parameter.  It's almost never right to use domain names; there are a handful of sites that use their domain name as their website name, but it's rare. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Auld Lang Syne
Hi. I can do some light cheerleading and stuff, but pleased be warned that I am a thin sliver of my former Gryphon self. The mere thought... and here I am not exaggerating... of the fetid slime I had to swim through in the past makes me feel as if earth's gravity had nearly doubled, and its skies are all grim and gray. &sect; Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We'll tak' an edit or two of kindness yet...  Good to see you here again.  Have fun.  I still use your source checking script! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you
I wanted to thank you for your comments on the Li Rui FA review. I appreciate your assistance in getting it to the state it's in today! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Neighbours
Hello! I hope you are having a good Easter. A few months ago, I wrote this article and I am considering nominating it for GA, but I'm not entirely sure if I should. I was wondering if you would mind having a quick skim of it to determine whether you think I should nominate it. I understand that this is not a necessary step in the GAN process, but I do not want to waste reviewers' time by nominating it only for it to be declined. If you can't quickly skim over the article, that is all good. As I said; I understand it is an extra step in the process. Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on Neighbours, but, , and all seem very knowledgeable -- I would suggest asking their opinions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know, I was just asking about technical errors that are visible from a skim. But I will ask. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Promotion of Science Fiction Adventures (1956 magazine)
Congratulatios, and thank you today for Science Fiction Monthly, introduced: "This article is about the first science fiction magazine I ever saw; you can blame Science Fiction Monthly for many of my previous magazine FAC submissions. It was an experiment in that it was focused on reprinting SF artwork, and the fiction was expected to be secondary. Many a teenager's bedroom was papered with the poster art from SF Monthly. It failed after a little over two years, so there's not a whole lot to say about it, but what there is, I believe, is here.! - Thank you also for doing the FAC stats! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Science Fiction Monthly scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Science Fiction Monthly article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 11, 2023. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page blurb, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/April 11, 2023, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. If you wish to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/April 2023.

I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Feel free to change the image Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jim. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for another interesting item of nostalgia. I bought NEL books back in the day and some copies of this magazine too.  They must still be around here somewhere.  Hmm... Andrew🐉(talk) 07:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Finally got rid of (almost) all my magazines. Still a few more magazines I can write articles about; I should get around to working on the Interzone article one of these days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you
I deeply appreciate the time you're taking to read through On Guard for Peace. It's my first GA nomination; I wasn't aware of the peer review process until last week and now have doubts about my nomination. I'm wondering whether I should withdraw and submit it there first. Any advice you can give me would be received with utmost gratitude. Thank you. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going through it now and it looks in pretty good shape, though I do have some comments. I think it will end up being promoted, but you may want to take to peer review anyway, particularly if you're interested in nominating it at WP:FAC.  If you are interested in FAC, let me know; there are a couple of very good writers on classical music topics who are experienced at FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

ChristieBot duplication
ChristieBot seems insistent on adding duplicated guidelines to WP:GAN - any idea why? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like I have a transclusion of the guidelines as well as the guidelines explicitly in the code. I'll poke about and see when and how that happened.  I seem to recall we had to change the guidelines as a result of one of the passed proposals -- maybe it was something that happened then? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the last three edits here. I don't remember the details but will have a look through WT:GAN history to see what the reason was; but the last edit was by you -- do you remember what this was about? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of this, but that doesn't seem to be the reason you added the guidelines paragraph again. Do you recall why? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! Much appreciated! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 03:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

MOS:CONFORM
Hi Mike, hope all is well. Just curious about your edit summary here. My reading of CONFORM is that it permits the brackets to indicate changed capitalizations (However, for more precision, the altered letter may be put inside square brackets: "The" → "[t]he".) I don't really care either way, and am inclined to think it might look better without, but is there something there that suggests it should not be noted? Again, not upset or concerned, just curious. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 02:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi -- you know, given that it's a featured article, I really should have asked about it on the talk page rather than making the edit like that, so my apologies. I remember thinking when I saw the article first some while ago that those brackets were ugly, and that there should be something in the MoS that said they weren't necessary, so I recently posted to the MoS talk page asking if something could be added to MOS:TYPOFIX to that effect.  The reply was that the rule was already in MOS:CONFORM, and then a more recent reply appeared to the effect that it was preferable to correct in this way.  That was what prompted me to go ahead and make the change.  I did see the caveat about "more precision", but couldn't see that the reader gained anything from knowing the original punctuation.  If you feel it's better the way you had it, that's fine -- I wouldn't do it that way myself but it's a judgement call. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 03:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, that makes sense! I’m fine with the article as it is right now. Thanks for the response. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 03:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Review discussion for Jamie Dornan article
Hello there, I hope you don't mind if I continue necessary discussions here from now. I have seen the suggestions you have made regarding some sources. So I will work on it now. And I will inform you on the talk page of Jamie Dornan if I am able to replace them with proper sources. I will do it as soon as I can. Have a good day. Fitzwilliams (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, . We can discuss the review here if you have some reason to, but wouldn't it make more sense to discuss it at the GA review page?  That's the intention of having a separate review page, and that way the review is linked from the article's talk page too. I'm watching that page, so when you've decided what to do about those sources, just leave a note there and I'll see it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * you are right, we should continue there. I have written down there what I did with the references. Fitzwilliams (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Mike Christie I just wanted thank you for your suggestions for improving Jamie Dornan article. Now going through all the text, I can see it has a lot of issues. "Source Integrity Check" was really needed. Thanks!! Fitzwilliams (talk) 10;49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm glad the review was helpful -- thanks for letting me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Barnstar!

 * Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Trevor Carter review
I am overjoyed to hear that you have chosen to help review my page on Trevor Carter. I have been a wikipedia editor for the past two years and this is the first time somebody has reviewed my page for GA-status. I look forward to hearing back from you in the future. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi -- glad to hear from you! I'll post a few notes shortly but I think I'm about to get called down to dinner so I probably won't finish the review this evening. If not it'll be tomorrow morning (US East coast time). Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Shiotani
Well, this was short and (for me) painless. Which came as a pleasant surprise: Although late last year I was flattering myself that my article was pretty good, this made me suppose that no, it would get a hammering. I hope reading and commenting on it didn't take too much of your time, and I apologize for its lack of any value whatever for Anglo-Saxon studies. -- Hoary (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed the article more than most of the GA reviews I'm doing at the moment -- I knew nothing about pictorialism, and Shiotani's life is interesting, as is the revival of interest in him. Most of the other reviews I'm doing are of brand-new nominators, which (as I probably should have expected) is leading to many failed GAs.  A bit disheartening, so it was a pleasant break to read a well-written article.  I looked at Buidhe's comments (hadn't noticed them before, I'm sorry to say) and I see her point, but on the other hand MOS:FOREIGN isn't part of the GA criteria, which only includes a few elements of the MoS.  I think if you were to take this to FAC you would run into others with similar opinions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

GANs that are premature, even delusional, can indeed be depressing. ¶ A problem with "pictorialism" is that it's pretty close to "like a picture". Well, a picture by Vermeer, by Turner, by Watteau, by Magnasco? And what kind of similarity? Et cetera. ("Romanticism" and "decadence" are similarly meaningless.) ¶ Those comments of Buidhe's: I know I really should either reference or delete some of the footnotes. But rather than worry about FAs, I think that for now I'll limit my ambitions to GAs: for every hundred of these that Epicgenius has produced, I ought to be able to produce at least one. (I do have a third GAN in mind; again, the article has no Anglo-Saxon content.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Science Fiction Adventures (1956 magazine)
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 14 June 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/June 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/June 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

re Your GA nomination of Ian Gibbons (biochemist)
I'm sorry I wasn't around, are you able to take another look and I'll respond to your review comments? It takes quite a while to get a reviewer so I was checking back in every once in a while... Princessa Unicorn (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure -- just renominate it and I should be able to pick it up some time this week -- I hope tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you (again)
"Thank you" doesn't nearly begin to convey how grateful I am for your patience and guidance in helping the On Guard for Peace article make it to GA. My very deepest gratitude to you for your work. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , I do a lot of GA reviews, and the ones I enjoy the most are where an engaged and knowledgeable nominator has nominated a well-written and interesting article. Reviews like that are a pleasure.  I hope to see you at GAN again -- in fact, are you interested in reviewing?  There's always a backlog, and good writers who are also careful editors make excellent reviewers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be, yes. How do I do become a reviewer? — CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Go to WP:GAN and take a look through the 535 (!) articles waiting to be reviewed; click through anything that might interest you and have a look at the article. You may not want to take on a 10,000 word article for your first review, after all.  Then take a look at WP:GAN/I for the instructions, and at WP:GACR for the criteria.  If you decide to go ahead and review an article, the instructions tell you how, but basically you just click on the "Start review" link from WP:GAN and save that page.  You don't have to do any notifications to the nominator; a bot will do all of that.  The review page will come up with a template listing the criteria which a lot of reviewers find useful as a way to organize their review, but it's not compulsory -- as you saw, I didn't use it for the review I did of On Guard for Peace.  Then read the article and note any issues you spot.  If you give it a shot and have questions I'll be happy to help in any way, but WT:GAN is also a good place for new reviewers to ask questions -- lots of very experienced reviewers hang out there.  Another reason to review, by the way, is that the more you review, the higher on the GAN list your own nominations will appear, so there's an incentive to review other people's articles as it moves your own article up the review list. But you don't have to review from the top of the list; that's just a suggestion -- review anything that takes your fancy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Let me take a look and jump in. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Norman Whiteside Delisting
Dear Mike, I was making a small tweak to the template of the above article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Whiteside when I happened to see it should not be a GA under any circumstances due to inadequate references. However, I'm not sure I've adjusted the Talk page correctly, if you could fix this as required? I hope this is no trouble. Thanks Billsmith60 (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi -- I've reverted your change; there's not really a way to summarily delist a GA, no matter how much it may deserve it. The process is outlined at WP:GAR.  There's a link there to a script that will make the process a lot simpler, but it's not that hard to do the manual steps.  If you want to go ahead and nominate it for a reassessment I'll be glad to check you did it correctly, but I'm also going to ping the  coordinators for that process so they're aware -- I actually don't have much to do with GAR and am not really expert on it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As an unwritten rule (like 90% of Wikipedia administration) GA's can be summarily delisted by reversion if they are recently and improperly promoted (i.e. within a few days), usually if the promotion itself is at fault, more than just the article, acting as if they were never given the plus. Otherwise, everything should go through GAR. As the article passed GAN in 2012, it obviously falls into the second category. I've nommed the GAR myself. It can be found here. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  21:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In practice, not going through GAN is only acceptable for items that have recently passed and had flawed reviews. See how the GAN goes and it'll be delisted (provided no one picks it up to fix ).  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey, thanks for restoring the page. I am the author of the changes, and of course it falls on me to agree with the other editor. However. I have the feeling that they are being disingenuous and would appreciate it if you would weigh in to me with your opinion. 134.106.109.104 (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I won't have time to look further till this evening, but I do know CMD as a very patient and reasonable editor. If you're discussing it on his talk page, as I see you are, I feel confident he will agree with any justifiable edits.  It sounds like you feel you have good citation support for your changes; if that's the case I don't think you'll have any trouble. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Acts of Peter and the Twelve
Finished and passed! Really nice little article, perfect for WP. Thank you for sharing with me. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm glad! Thanks for picking it up; it's not something I would have felt comfortable reviewing, but I knew you'd be able to very easily. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 56
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes

Issue 56, March – April 2023 
 * New partner:
 * Perlego
 * Library access tips and tricks
 * Spotlight: EveryBookItsReader

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

May I ask a question about a GAN?
Hey. Many times in my wiki-life in the past, when I was unsure about something, I went to the Talk of GA or FA or various other processes or projects to ask a question. Every single time it left me feeling more than a little embarrassed. I am becoming (and have perhaps already become) profoundly allergic to doing so. So I come here humbly asking a question: Talk:History of the United States (1776–1789)/GA1. I am inclined to Fail it because there is no coverage of Native Americans or free blacks. The section on slavery is tiny and rushed. The whole article seems too Anglo-centric to me, and that's coming from me. I may not be who you might expect to feel that way. I'm a very cranky, just past-middle-aged and staring at "old" from close distance, pretty conservative white guy from a flyover state (and very proud of the latter, Kentucky Forever!). But 1) it is a summary-style, so that creates a lot of leeway for rushed coverage, and 2) as for the native Americans, it depends on one's definition of "United States". Is "United States" a geographical or political entity? Do you think it is legitimate to Fail this for the reason I gave? Thanks. &sect; Lingzhi (talk&#124;check refs) 23:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I would not immediately fail for something like this. It's something of a judgement call, but unless I have enough evidence of problems with the article to believe they can't be fixed in a reasonable time, I'd be inclined to say some version of what you said above to me -- trying to pitch it as constructive criticism, which is of course a delicate balance of phrasing -- and let the nominator respond.  I've been surprised in both directions when I've done this -- sometimes a nominator will make significant changes quite quickly and very competently, and the result is a clear improvement; and sometimes they push back and convince me that I was wrong to ask for X.  Ultimately it's the reviewer's call, but engaging the nominator is worthwhile if they're a strong editor.  I've found this particular editor to be articulate, thoughtful, and knowledgeable, and I think you'd get good results from engaging. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks! Will do. &sect; Lingzhi (talk&#124;check refs) 02:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Transgender history in Finland
Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , I was the reviewer, but had no other involvement, so this seems to be a misdirected notification? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like your name was included in the initial nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Transgender history in Finland, likely by mistake, when the nom was created by User:Onegreatjoke, and because of that your name got automatically added to the set's DYKmake list when it was promoted. - Aoidh (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That explains it -- thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Antoine Hamilton
Dear Mike. You started reviewing the article Antoine Hamilton on 20 April 2023. You convinced me that it needed more citations. How could I have thought that this article was ready for GA? Perhaps I should have retracted the nomination. I could still do this if you prefer so, but I hope you are still ready to go, possibly after some delay. I very much like your style of reviewing. I feel the depth of your experience.

Today is the 30 May. It spent more than 5 weeks. The size increased from 2257 to 2974 words and the citations from 109 to 213. There are still gaps in the verifiability especially in the Works section, but I feel I should at least give you some news. I changed the citation style to be not only "shortened footnotes" but also "list-defined references". This should result in more readable code. I wondered whether you think it worthwhile. I still provide the footquotes you mentioned. Some reviewers have demanded I should drop them and merge all the citations referring to the same page.

I tried to equilibrate the article against those of his father (George, 1st baronet) and his siblings (James, George, Elizabeth, Richard, and John), reducing overlap, and moving details to these articles. I simplified dates, dropping days and months when such precision is needless. Some reviewers have found timeline tables needless. Please have a look at the improved article if you have the time. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi -- thanks for the update! I will take another look -- it might be tonight, but if not it won't be later than some time on Thursday.  I look forward to reading through it again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Hermann Fegelein GA tag
Hello Mike,

Is the tag missing from this page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Fegelein

All the best Billsmith60 (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it's there -- in this article it's near the end. By the way, when you put a template like that on a message like this, wrap it in   tags, as I've just done -- otherwise the template tries to actually do whatever it does, which means in this case it tries to mark this talk page as a good article! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheers Mike – and sorry about that! Billsmith60 (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The Black Cat (US magazine) scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the The Black Cat (US magazine) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 18, 2023. Please check the article needs no amendments. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jim. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Also rerunning Radiocarbon dating on July 6, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Mars in fiction at WP:FAC
Hi! You expressed interest in reviewing Mars in fiction when it was at WP:Peer review (WP:Peer review/Mars in fiction/archive1). It is now at WP:FAC, see WP:Featured article candidates/Mars in fiction/archive1, and that process has slowed down considerably in the last few weeks. Your input at the FAC would be very appreciated indeed. TompaDompa (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll comment there, though I don't think I'll have time for a full review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

science fiction adventures
Mike Christie, i had two quick questions regarding this article and the associated blurb. alternatively, if you are unsure about whether the magazine printed other types of stories, the following rewording is ambiguous on the issue."It focused on action-adventure stories that were longer than Infinity."
 * i noticed that the article states that shaw "printed straightforward action-adventure stories", while the blurb states that the magazine "focused on ... mainly action-adventure stories". to me, the blurb implies that the magazine also printed other stories, while the article strongly suggests (but does not explicitly state) that the magazine's stories were exclusively action-adventure stories.  do you think the blurb's use of the word "mainly" is appropriate here?  if not, the following is one possible rewrite that more closely follows the article."It printed action-adventure stories, focusing on fiction longer than Infinity."

dying (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * in the article, should "dated November 1935" be "dated November 1955"? i couldn't tell if it was instead a faithful reproduction of what was perhaps an intentional error or a typo.
 * Hi -- thanks for the note. The second point is just a typo; I've fixed it.  For the other point, the source doesn't explicitly say there was nothing except action-adventure fiction, but it's implied.  I think your first option would be the better choice -- that wording similarly implies but doesn't directly assert that that's what it printed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * . thanks, Mike Christie.  dying (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article, "about a minor science fiction magazine from the 1950s. It was never prominent, but it did publish material by some well-known writers, such as Harlan Ellison and Robert Silverberg"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gerda. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Ramón Iribarren
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Daisy Bacon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Detective Story.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

a mop?
Think you'd be great with one. Why not? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've thought about it occasionally, but I almost never need the admin bit -- nothing I do is in those areas.  The only exception was when I was working on moving old GAs to the right place; solving some mysteries required looking at deleted history, but a couple of posts to AN got me what I needed.  If I ever get more involved in an area where it would help to be an admin I would probably run, but it hasn't happened yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 2013 CECAFA Cup
2013 CECAFA Cup has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

ChristieBot
Hi Mike. I haven't done a GA review for a while, so this is the first review I've done since you took over from Legobot. I prefer to notify nominators myself about the review, and Legoktm did adjust Legobot for me, so that I could give personal messages rather than bot messages. Would you be able to do a similar adjustment on ChristieBot? SilkTork (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi -- yes, I think that should be pretty easy to set up. You want me to not notify the nominator for all possible conditions -- start review, hold, pass, and fail, right? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mike. Yes, that's correct. My routine is only to notify a nominator after I have started a review and have something for them to do - at that point discussion continues on the review page. And then I like to give a personal message after the review to the nominator and all significant contributors. SilkTork (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Done, I think; let me know if anything slips through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. SilkTork (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking good - I've just promoted I Want You (Bob Dylan song) and your bot tagged the article, but didn't post to the nominator's talkpage. And yesterday I started reviewing Daydream (The Lovin' Spoonful song), and there is no post to the nominator's talkpage. Thanks again. SilkTork (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

:)

 * Thank you! Much appreciated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Second this barnstar. much deserved (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Possible minor GAN bug
The GAN review of 1964–1965 Scripto strike was opened and deleted as abandoned. In this edit, the GAN template was reset to remove the onreview parameter. The article is correctly listed as waiting for review in the main GAN list but it should also show up on the 10 oldest unreviewed nominations. Possibly the error is happening with the bot that updates WP:GAN/R as it is incorrectly listed there as well. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * WugBot, which updates the oldest unreviewed nominations list, runs once a day, and I would guess will catch this the next time it runs. WugBot works by reading the GAN page so if the GAN page is unambiguous it should get it right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you're right; it's now fixed. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

GA nom question
Hello, Mike. I just had a question about a recent article that became a GA. Originally I co-nominated it because it ended up being two of us who cleaned it up to prep for the GAN. I was happy to just help address a couple things in the review if needed. However, the original reviewer apparently abandoned it almost immediately a month ago, and was pinged multiple times by me and the reviewer. I eventually just told the reviewer I'd take over and address the issues that were brought up.

Long story short, is it possible for me to get credit for the nomination even though I wasn't the original nominator since after giving the original nominator a month, I ended up doing 99% of the work? --  Zoo Blazer talk 07:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * At the moment there's no way to give credit to conominators or co-reviewers. In this case I think it would make more sense to make you the reviewer, rather than the nominator, since I don't think we should ever have a case where the same person is both, though I can see either would make sense.  ChristieBot gives reviewer credit to whoever creates the review page, and (I think) SDZeroBot gives nominator credit to whoever is in the GA nomination template at the time it's created.  It would be possible for me to create an override list, which would convert reviewer A to reviewer B for a given GA nomination, but I'm reluctant to do that for a couple of reasons.
 * What would definitely fix it would be to have "|nominator1=" and "|nominator2=" etc. parameters in the GA template, and similarly "|reviewer=". Then the definition of nominator, conominator, and reviewer could depend on the values of those parameters.  That would also require changes to articlehistory.  I've suggested a nominator parameter at both templates' talk pages in the past and did not get agreement.  There are arguments against such a change -- for one thing, at the moment when a nominator or reviewer is identified, there's no need for the bots to look again, since it can't change.  Any such change would require periodically rescanning every relevant article, which would be slow and expensive, computationally. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Bummer. Oh well. I guess maybe to get credit for the article now, I'll have to focus on FA or something.
 * Sorry if I worded things weird, but I wasn't the reviewer. I only did what a nominator would do in terms of cleaning up the article based on the GAR. --  Zoo Blazer talk 21:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I see; yes, I didn't quite get that. I think most people who do a lot of content end up with work in a few articles that they don't get a nominator's credit for; I wouldn't worry about that -- it's still your work, as anyone who looks at the history will see.  And if it prompts you to take the article to FAC, that's a good outcome! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Killing of Mitch Henriquez
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Doc Savage (magazine)
Hi Mike. Gog would like to put this one up at TFA on August 17, unless there are objections. If you're interested in writing a blurb for it, just write whatever you want and I'll format it if necessary. If you prefer, I'll try doing the blurb myself. - Dank (push to talk) 02:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine with me; go ahead and do the blurb -- I think it should be a straightforward trim of the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Doc Savage (magazine) scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 17 August 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/August 17, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Bot bug? Duplicated short descriptions
Hi Mike, looking at Good article nominations, I see a few duplicated short descriptions (see for example, Airbus Beluga, 2023 Djerba shooting, Ida Hunt Udall. Is this a bug in your bot or a problem from elsewhere? —Kusma (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like the error happens when the nomination is made -- see here. So it's happening in GA, before the bot looks at it. , you were the one who made the change -- any idea what's causing the issue? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the error was caused by recent edits to Module:Template parameter value, which was used to extract the shortdesc. I've switched GAN over to a different module and things should be fine now. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Things that might count towards GA stats
Mike, since we've just been chatting about another matter, perhaps it's a good moment to ask whether some other things might get counted in the GA stats. It's obviously a side-issue but it could still be significant.

One thing is participating at GAR, helping to save articles from being delisted. There are some at User:Chiswick Chap/Rescues (most recent at the end). These may be tricky to count as roles are flexible and there can be more than one person involved in a rescue.

Another thing is taking over as a GAN reviewer, when, as at Talk:Agriculture in Turkey/GA1, a reviewer becomes unavailable or drops out for some reason (in this case, two reviewers have gone, for different reasons). In this case I've just started, but have already done a substantial amount of work on the case. Again, I can see that calculating the stats could be tricky as there are multiple people involved; but it'd be nice to be credited where credit is due. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd love to be able to track this sort of thing. The main reason I can't do it at the moment is that none of the templates record nominator(s) or reviewer(s).  The GA template, for example, doesn't have a nominator= or reviewer= field (or nominator2= etc.).  That would enable someone to go back in time and edit an old template to add nominator, reviewer, and if necessary conominators and co-reviewers.  Or even to remove a nominator and replace them if someone takes over dealing with the review; I've certainly seen that happen.  It would also be necessary to add similar fields to Article history.  I've suggested this at both templates' talk pages and got no support and some minor pushback.  (I can find those links if you don't see the threads immediately.)  I think we'd need to get consensus somewhere to make the change.  There are some technical issues I'd need to think about, but it could be done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. That explains several mysteries at once, like why it's so hard to see who nominated a long-completed GA from the article's talk page. I'd certainly support the additional data fields if you ever try again. Well, until we get a better system, we have the one we've got. Perhaps the fact that there are various uncounted GA-related entities in the mix should at least tell us that editors contribute productively to the GA project in multiple ways. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Promotion of Battle Birds
Congratulations, and thank you today for The Black Cat (US magazine), "about an unusual and somewhat influential fiction magazine started at the end of the 19th century. It published many writers who later became famous -- Henry Miller's first sale was to The Black Cat, and it saved Jack London's career by buying a story from him just as he was about to give up writing. The covers were the work of the publisher's wife, Nelly Littlehale Umbstaetter, who went on to have a minor career as an artist. It published science fiction and fantasy, but also just about every other kind of fiction."! - I have a Bach cantata and a saxophonist on the same page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gerda. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 57
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes

Issue 57, May – June 2023 
 * Suggestion improvements
 * Favorite collections tips
 * Spotlight: Promoting Nigerian Books and Authors

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

DeepStateMap.Live
Hi Mike, can you help on the above article, which has been nominated at GA? I was intending to review it, but instead put the cleanup tag. After getting a reply from the nominator, I'm not sure who is right (see User_talk:Amitchell125). Am I going wrong somewhere? Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi -- I've only had time for a quick look, and am about to head off to work so won't be able to really look again until tonight. I suggest posting to WT:GAN where you'll get more eyes on the question (or maybe a TPS will have time to comment here).  I will say from that brief look through that in a couple of cases it does seem that primary sources are being relied on for more than just "this message was sent at this time", which would be a concern.  I'd have to read in more detail to be sure.  I can't say if I'd have quick-failed it -- typically I only quick-fail if I don't think an article is salvageable with a reasonable amount of work, but I'd be hard-pressed to give you a good definition of "reasonable".  If you post to WT:GAN I'll follow the conversation there and may chip in again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Avengers
Hey, if you have time in the coming months(?), would you be willing to do the GA review for Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe)? You did a great job and helped a lot on your review for Thanos a few months ago, and this is another important MCU article that's planned to be the main article in an eventual GT/FT. It's another tough one to write like Thanos was that might need the eye of someone who doesn't watch every MCU movie. There's no rush since I only nominated the article a couple days ago, but I figured I'd ask. --  Zoo Blazer talk 07:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm only doing the occasional GA review at the moment, and when I do I'm trying to prioritize the ones that are at the top of the sorting order. Avengers is actually fairly near the top, comparatively, so I'm not saying I won't review it, but I can't tell you when I'd get to it.  Unfortunately I know even less about the Avengers than I did about Thanos, having never read any of the relevant comics as a kid (I was an X-Men and to a lesser extent Fantastic Four fan!) so it's a bit daunting, but that also means it would be interesting to wade into.  I see you've done several GA reviews; if you do a handful more, that would boost it up the list more and make it more likely to get a good review, since the sort order depends on how many GA reviews you've done.  But I'll definitely keep an eye out for it when I'm looking for something to review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Leeds 13
RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a list of everyone who nominated and/or reviewed an article in the last year?
I need to send out signup reminders for the backlog drive that starts on August 1 and this list would be helpful to me. If you're busy I can get it another way. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I can get it, at least back to November last year. Will do it tonight if it's easy otherwise probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you want counts or just a list of names? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * List of names is all I need. Thanks so much! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, here's the list. It includes IPs, I'm afraid; hope that's not too tricky to remove. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * You're the best! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
User:AirshipJungleman29 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * I nominate Mike Christie to be EOTW — seriously!! 84 Featured Articles on science fiction magazines, prehistoric and Anglo-Saxon history, and literally everything in between...plus all the reviews he does at FAC; and that's not even counting the fabulous work he's done with ChristieBot at the Good Article process, totally revamping the whole thing, all while doing 380 (!!!) reviews at GAN? I can't believe he's been editing since 2006, with 60000 edits, and he hasn't received this yet—in my opinion, long, long overdue. Plus 663 reviews at FAC [!], 174 of them in 2022. And keeping the FAC statistics up to date and the associated tools working. I suspect that he has secretly cloned himself in order to deal with the backlog. How on earth have we let this literal angel go without an EOTW award for seventeen years. This nomination was seconded by User:Gog the Mild, User:Unlimitedlead and User:CT55555.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Thanks again for your efforts! &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   12:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Very well deserved. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed! MC, you're one of those editors that might actually be irreplaceable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This was long overdue, congrats! Vanamonde (Talk) 14:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, all! This was a very pleasant surprise, and much appreciated! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Radiocarbon dating, introduced (in 2015): "Radiocarbon dating has revolutionized archaeology, and the invention of the method earned Willard F. Libby a Nobel Prize. I've been working on the article for over a year, and I think it's now ready to be nominated here.  It's benefitted from a peer review, where several editors helped improve the article."! - My story today pictures a friend whose birthday is today ;) - at a fancy place where we listened to music she helped publishing. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gerda. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Finally: June pictures updated, with three great RMF concerts! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * While today's DYK highlights Santiago on his day, I did my modest share with my story today, describing what I just experienced, pictured. I began the article of the woman in green. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Today Jahrhundertring, and I'm listening to Götterdämmerung from the Bayreuth Festival (pictured), - the image (of a woman who can't believe what she has to see) features also on the article talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Venus in fiction at WP:FAC
Hi! You reviewed Venus in fiction when it was at WP:FAC last year (Featured article candidates/Venus in fiction/archive1). It has now been nominated again, see Featured article candidates/Venus in fiction/archive2. If you are interested in weighing in on the new FAC, your input would be appreciated. TompaDompa (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I should be able to take a look some time this week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

In appreciation

 * Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Script
Hi, the script I used at Daisy Bacon that suggested the (unwanted) changes that I made was User:Ohconfucius/script/formatgeneral. Congratulations on another Featured Article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I may post a note there suggesting that they cut that from the script. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS
Mike, I added an image to Thursday's TFA blurb but it looks like that image won't work. User:Dying has suggested two possible images, if you want to weigh in; the link is at WP:ERRORS. Thx. - Dank (push to talk) 13:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- have commented there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Promotion of Daisy Bacon
Congratulations! Today, we thank you for Doc Savage (magazine), "about the magazine that started the Doc Savage franchise. Doc Savage never became as famous as The Shadow, but the magazine was very successful, lasting over 180 issues. It was mostly the work of one man, Lester Dent. As with most pulp fiction, the prose is poor, but Dent made up for the writing style by stuffing his stories full of enough plot elements to fill several novels. The franchise is alive to this day, but that's covered in Doc Savage; this article covers just the original magazine."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Today is Debussy's birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Kylian Mbappé GA review
Hello Mike Christie. I have recently gone over all the points you listed here on the GA review for Kylian Mbappé from September 2022. If you would be open to reviewing the article a second time, since you already had started the main work, I would highly appreciate it. Side note: I didn't remove the BR Football sources because I disagree - there is no proof that it is inherently unreliable. It is widely used on Wikipedia, and is not a problem for factual information at all. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi -- I'm busier than usual in real life, so I don't think I'm going to be able to pick this up, I'm afraid. I have a FAC review to finish, and I owe several more after that.  As it happens there's a GA backlog drive going on at the moment, so you may be in luck in getting a review faster than usual.  If it's still sitting in the queue when I get back to doing GA reviews I may pick it up.  Good luck with the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem, thank you. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Is this bug still a bug
Hello. Could you tell me if this bug is still happening? If not, thank you, and let me know, I will remove this note. Prhartcom (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that was a bug in Legobot; as far as I know ChristieBot has never had that issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I have removed the note since you have removed the bug. And thank you for ChristieBot; we are all grateful for it (I remember I could never get the developer to respond to requests to fix Legobot). Prhartcom (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Bot
Hey there, maybe I'm wrong but it looks like your Bot is a little broken, as it has stopped updating GA nominations since yesterday. Regards User23242343 (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up -- I think it's fixed now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure thing and thanks for fixing it. User23242343 (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Argosy (magazine), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Argosy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

TFA
Hi Mike. I am planning on running Asimov's Science Fiction as the TFA for 1 Novemeber. I wondered if you fancied doing the draft blurb? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I never mind who does them, but I know you're always busy so I'll be happy to take it on. I'll ping you when I have a draft. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , I've drafted a version; if that looks OK I'll add back the wikilinks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not even going to ask why you took them out.
 * "but Asimov defended". Most readers will not recognise the name, and anyway you haven't explained his relationship to the magazine. Maybe "but the magazine defended".
 * I am unsure why Bears is singled out as for mention as an example of an award winning story, but I would cut it.
 * Any thoughts re an image? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have become so used to the visual editor that copyediting text with markup in it annoys me, so I automatically paste text into a local text editor to work with if it's not in article space. There is a workaround to enable VE in other namespaces that I really ought to remember to use more often.  Anyway, changes made; Bisson was just the last named story left over after I cut, so no reason in particular and I agree it should go.  How does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * For an image, how about the current editor, Sheila Williams: File:Sheila Williams Photo.jpg, or the most famous editor, Gardner Dozois: File:GardnerDozoisCW98 wb (cropped).jpg? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's great Mike. Thanks, appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Source assistance
Hi Mike, hope you're well. I've been working on "The Day Before the Revolution", and I'd like to add contemporary magazine reviews; but I'm really struggling to find some. ISFDB does not list any reviews for the major anthologies it was included it:, ,. I thought this rather odd; surely there must have been a couple of reviews? Any advice would be appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The reviews on ISFDB are listed under the title, not the publication -- the title pages are here, here, and here. Easy mistake to make -- I only know this because I used to be an editor there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Aah. Confusing indeed, but thank you, this is more than enough to explore. I think I recall you saying you've given most of your magazine collections away; but is there any chance you have the April or May 1977 issues of Galaxy, or the June 1977 F&SF? Vanamonde (Talk) 03:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no -- I've sold every single one, except the Unknowns. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyhow, and I'll keep that in mind for the future. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 58
<span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes

Issue 58, July – August 2023 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
 * New partners - De Standaard and Duncker & Humblot
 * Tech tip: Filters
 * Wikimania presentation

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

GA Renomination process?
Hi Mike. Since you have reviewed Thwaites Glacier for me, and run the GA notification bot, I think it's only natural to ask you if there are any differences between nominating an article that has never been GA before, and an article which was a GA once, but then lost its status. I am looking to nominate global dimming, which was apparently a GA between 2007 and 2020, when it got delisted. Is there anything specific I would need to do or keep in mind? Cheers. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 09:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The only thing I would suggest is to read the delisting and make sure everything there is addressed. Other than that it's exactly as if the article had never been a GA.  Good luck with it! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And indeed, that article was awfully outdated and poorly structured when I started working on it earlier this year! Every observation made during that delisting rings true to what I found then: after weeks of editing, the article is in a different state, and none of this should hold it back now. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments on FA nomination
Hello, I wanted to let you know that I nominated the article Communication for featured article status, see Featured article candidates/Communication/archive1. So far, there has not been much response from reviewers. I was wondering whether you are inclined to have a look at it due to your interest in literature. If you have the time, I would appreciate your comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi -- I have house guests at the moment and am about to go on vacation and then expect to be busy in real life, so I may not have time. On the other hand I do plan to nominate another article when my current nomination is off the FAC page, so I will be trying to do more reviews then.  I may get to it but I can't promise anything.  I am no expert on the topic but one question I would expect to ask is how well the contents map to high level introductory material in secondary sources.  For very specialized topics it's often hard to figure out what the secondary sources consider important, but for higher-level material there is usually a standard breakdown that textbooks (etc.) cover.  Not a review comment, just a thought. Best of luck with the nomination -- as others have said it's great to see this sort of article get nominated though as I suspect you're finding it's hard to get reviewers engaged because it's daunting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

GA lists collapsing
Hi Mike, do you happen to know why the GA list pages are autocollapsed? (Good articles/Music) It's a bit annoying, and I don't remember them doing that before so I'm wondering if something changed in some backend. Best, CMD (talk) 10:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't tell. I know nothing about modules or Lua but it seems to be invoking Module:Good Articles.  That seems to have not changed in years.  The generated HTML includes   which indicates that something has been generated with the collapsed flag set to true, but I can't see what that is.  Someone at WP:VPT would probably be able to figure it out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think all that is needed is to undo and related edits. I think the collapsing is bad; if someone needs it for the /all page it should be implemented using noinclude / oncludeonly switches. —Kusma (talk) 12:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's clearly the cause. I should have looked further back in the history. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kusma, that's also much longer than I checked back. I'll put decollapsing on my to do list unless someone gets there first. Best, CMD (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Question
Do you think it would be possible to add a rank column to User:GA bot/Stats like how List of Wikipedians by good article nominations has one? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Technically this is easy to do. I'm not sure when I can get to it but I will put it on my list. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 03:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request
Hi Mike, I've been working to expand The Wind's Twelve Quarters, as offshoot of my work on "The Day Before the Revolution"; many sources I read looking for material on the latter were more relevant to the former. I've never written about an anthology before, and am not confident in the way I've structured it; if you could offer any feedback, I'd much appreciate it. I'm targeting GA status only; I think the source material is too fragmentary to take this to FAC. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The structure seems fine to me. The only thing I can think of that might be added would be material about the publication and reception of the book -- is there anything sourceable about how Harper & Row came to publish it?  Could we summarize the reviews?  Most review commentary would belong in the individual story articles, but some summarization seems worthwhile. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 08:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've tried to add what review-type commentary I've found so far to the reception section, but the books I've read tend to focus on individual stories aside from a half-page in Spivack, and they ignore publication info altogether. There's reviews of the volume as a whole on newspapers.com, which I intend to sweep next. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ll have a look to see if I can find publication details sourced somewhere. I won’t be back in NY for a few days but I should be able to source UK and US publication details from Currey.  It would be interesting to know how the book came to be — did she approach Harper, or did her agent ship it around? —- but that sort of thing usually shows up only in book length biographies of writers and I don’t think there’s been one of Le Guin yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it would indeed be nice to have that, and not only for that book, but for several others I've written about. I wonder if there are any authors about whose writing quite so many books have been written (I've consulted at least 12) without a biography being written. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

How did you select the sources for ice core
Greetings, not sure if I already asked this question. How did you find/select the sources when writing ice core? I tend towards the "brute-force" approach of checking every source that mentions a topic, but that clearly didn't happen here. Asking because I was thinking to apply the same treatment to speleothem Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, I was working on List of ice cores, which led me to survey articles like Jouzel, Alley, Langway, and Talalay. Those survey articles gave me the framework for what I needed to cover and I then did additional searches for whatever seemed to need more fleshing out.  It's long enough ago that I can't be sure, but I think that's more or less how it went.  I think I also showed the article to a friendly archaeologist to see if they saw any obvious omissions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Protecting Wp:GAN
It's common for editors to mistakenly edit this page, not realizing that their changes will be overwritten by the bot. Besides causing confusion, these edits clog up editors' watch lists compared to adding notes in the GAN template and waiting for a bot run. I was thinking that it would require full or template protection to prevent the issue since it is commonly made by ecp editors. Do you think it would be a good idea to protect the page and get the necessary permissions for your bot? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I do have the template editor privilege so I don't think it would be a problem to request that the bot get that too. Probably best to ask at WT:GAN in case others can think of reasons why this might not be a good idea. E.g. what if the bot is down and I'm unavailable to fix it for some time?  I guess an admin could unprotect it in that case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Asimov's Science Fiction scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 1 November 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/November 1, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you today for Asimov's Science Fiction, "about one of the few important science fiction magazines to be launched in the last fifty years. Scores of award-winning stories have appeared in Asimov's over the years and it was at one point one of the most prestigious markets in the genre. There's not as much written about the last couple of decades, perhaps because sf in magazine form is no longer the cutting edge of the field, but I've included what I can find."! - I commented in the Feydeau RfC, but have no time - on vacation - to commented in more detail your long explanation. Perhaps you can find more already in the archive (wow, was that archived fast!). We can talk when I get home. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm home now. Hevenu shalom aleichem is my story today. - It's sort of related to the debate for Feydeau, of the sort once described as the infobox wars. I asked candidates for arbitrator last year if they believe that we still have these wars, and they said basically no. I think if we still have them, we should do what we can to arrive at something deserving the name peace. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Full of life version here. - I added some images from Aachen, taken 21 Oct. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I proudly remember having sung in an oratorio premiere seven years ago OTD. - The Feydeau was closed so I can't comment there. Briefly (and you can find it on my talk): I believe that the unforgotten Brian Boulton hoped for compromise when he wrote the 2013 article I recalled in the discussion, and wonder what would give that idea more support. For any person, there are the dates and places of birth and death to summarise, and almost nothing else is needed for me to want them neatly in a box instead of scattered over the lead, where the places are often not mentioned at all. Mentioning the details of the politics of historic places also frees the lead from this clutter. For composers, yes, I also like a convenient link to their works, because these are in principle part of their articles, just split off for length. That means five additional lines, + the common name, which is also a feature of clarification. Take Max Reger for example. In short, I don't understand why "fight" over five additional lines + header, have never understood. Can you explain, perhaps, why it didn't end even after an exemplary edit ? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Gerda; I'm so busy off-wiki and the moment that I only have time for a brief reply. I know you've been involved in many discussions about infoboxes, so I doubt any explanation I could give would improve on what I'm sure you've read in those discussions.  I mostly use infoboxes myself, but I think there are occasional cases where exceptions should be made, as at the Feydeau article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * See, that is the question I wonder about. I have not been in many infobox discussions because I think they are all a waste of time. The penultimate Mozart discussion went without me, for example. In the last one I made . - As explained I'd have missed Feydeau altogether but now I have the habit of putting every TFA on my watchlist for that day, and I saw what seemed unfair treatment of what looked to me like a newbie who probably had no idea of stepping into a warzone. In such cases I open my mouth, and when the first reply came, I unwatched again. Not worth it. So yes, in certain cases an exception should be made, in cases where the principal editor doesn't like it, doesn't like five added lines and a header. Imagine for a moment how much more time editors and admins (AN) would have had if the little thing had not been reverted ... according to the first line in the box here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * More content if you like: today I have three items on the Main page, almost too much of a good thing! Bach's amazing cantata with the unusual scale, first performed 300 years ago OTD, the nun for the prostitutes, and Schumann's wedding gift for Clara. Also first day of vacation pics uploaded. - I like that all three composers mentioned have an infobox, and wish that the disputes which have damaged editor relations could give way to more productive editing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * More content if you like: today I have three items on the Main page, almost too much of a good thing! Bach's amazing cantata with the unusual scale, first performed 300 years ago OTD, the nun for the prostitutes, and Schumann's wedding gift for Clara. Also first day of vacation pics uploaded. - I like that all three composers mentioned have an infobox, and wish that the disputes which have damaged editor relations could give way to more productive editing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for another good slice of nostalgia. I used to buy Asimov's and remember when it was the new kid on the block, following F&SF and Analog.  It's been .a while since I've bought any of them.  I could try a digital sub but have too many physical books to read still.  And my YouTube feed is now offering me regular interviews with Asimov himself which make interesting viewing.  He'd have really liked Wikipedia... Andrew🐉(talk) 19:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Glad you enjoyed it! Not many more to do from the modern era -- lots of minor magazines left but I think only Interzone and Omni are significant magazines from the 1970s on that still need a lot of work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

FA RFCs
Hi Mike, I hope all is well. I've been drafting up the text for the two RFCs I'll put on FA shortly. As you're more skilled at these, and as you have a better grasp of the machinations of FA than I do, would you be able to have a look over them and make any changes or suggestions you think beneficial? The text is at User talk:SchroCat/littertray 3. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. I just had a quick look and they seem clear and to the point, but I'll think about it a bit and comment here, or there if you prefer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike, Great, thanks. Comment wherever you prefer - or change directly if you want: whatever you are happiest with. Thanks very much for looking over these. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

FAC FFS
I'd love to understand your reasoning behind thinking FAC is functioning fine, as it degenerates to a page where reviewers are repeatedly (three now) told to go fuck themselves up their ass. That seems a bit contradictory, but that could be because I don't speak the language. More on topic. What I would think is patently obvious is that the decline in reviews is not only because of the alienation of old-timers, the refusal to respect the need for higher quality sourcing, the rudeness directed by Coords towards nominators and reviewers alike, but more relevant to me as opposed to others, is that if I can't even load the page to review as once did (go down the entire page, top-to-bottom) and enter the much-needed Opposes, how do we expect reviews not to decline? The last time we had a discussion of the instructions, and I told you they weren't clear and didn't say what y'all thought they said, I was ignored (now we have a new reviewer saying same). If I could understand your thinking on that simple aspect (declining because reviewers can't load the page), I might be able to see more than a dictatorial regime running the process, which pleases those who get their own stars, overall quality aside. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Re DWB's behaviour, yes, certainly something needs to be done about that, but I don't think it's up to the coordinators. The coord don't have the power to archive a nomination or prevent an editor from nominating just because they're rude to someone.  I don't read AN and ANI enough to know if DWB should be blocked, but presumably it would need to be an uninvolved admin -- we do have many admins watching that page and I wonder if they're holding back because they think the coords should deal with it.
 * Re the inability to load the page: if it relates to templates then yes of course that has to be dealt with -- that leads to the end of the page being invisible to all editors. I'm not sure what is going on with some editors saying they can't get to the end of the page, though, because we're nowhere near the template limit at the moment.  Are they (and you) just saying the page is too long?  Or is something actually preventing the last FACs on the page from being displayed?  If the latter I can't think what it could be.  What do you see at the bottom of the page when you have this issue?  Is it happening now? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My point about the Coords relative to DWB's behavior is they aren't bringing forward issues to talk for discussion. Theoretically, they are the ones who read through every FAC, and coulda/shoulda known there were problems long ago.  Why should HJ Mitchell or TombaDompa take the brunt of something that wasn't dealt with?  As to whether he should be blocked, in my experience, no admin at FAC has ever blocked someone for incivility, and I'm not sure that per se troubles me.  We've built a core group of FA prima donnas by pushing up FAs that shouldn't be, and it's to be expected they'll go ballistic when the gig is up.  And I don't like the idea of taking FAC business to AN/I; the FAC community should be able to handle it themselves.  Those FACs will get closer scrutiny now and maybe be shut down sooner. That's not really my concern; the f'ing is more related to the issue of problems that have been allowed to fester too long. I'm not sure either on the load time issue, because I upgraded my internet speed, so am surprised.  Maybe it's also browser related?  I dunno; but when I accidentally click on WP:FAC, when I meant to click on WT:FAC, I have to sit there for minutes until it lets me out ! And when I was trying to do so much busy work, like cleaning up archives and the like, that was sure frustrating, as I often ended up stalled. All I can do to explain it is that the page won't load; you get a white screen.  I really think it's no longer template limits; it may just be the templates in general, I dunno, technodummie.  Once Czar put up the alerts page, I could start picking out some pages for review, because then I could get to them. But if I go to WP:FAC directly, I get a white screen for a long time, then a partially filled screen for a while, and eventually the whole page.  Besides that, after I used Czar's Article alerts to go direct to individual FACs, I was gobsmacked at what I saw.  We are well beyond what FACs should be; if I could start at the top and just enter opposes where warranted, and help get some closed sooner, I'd do that.  But the environment is too hostile; we've conditioned nominators to expect other people will dig in to give them their stars, so of course they tell us to F off when they don't get them.  The process is set up now so that the default is for other people to pull the stars through.  Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * PS, but I don't think it's broswer-related, because I have loadtime problems on both my iPad and my real computer, different browsers. Maybe I need ultra-higher speed to be able to load FAC.  And maybe it's also related to the extreme segmentation of each FACs with subheads; we don't use subheads at FAR, rather move long discussions to talk, and I've never had a load time problem at FAR no matter how backlogged the page. It's things like that that make me wish Nikkimaria (FAR Coord) had a bigger say in FAC functioning; FAR runs smoothly.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, sounds like it can't be browser-related. I think VPT is your next stop if you want to pursue it.  It certainly shouldn't be the case that the page takes minutes to display.  I just tried it on my PC and it takes five seconds till the page is usable (i.e. I can start scrolling and reading) and ten before it's fully loaded.  My phone doesn't deal with it very well (it's a very old phone) but that's mostly because the nomination viewer layout doesn't work well with tiny screens.  Incidentally (you'll remember this if anyone does) didn't someone create a page that consisted of nothing but the list of FACs as links -- i.e. not transcluded?  So an editor could choose to use that instead of WP:FAC and click through to whatever FACs they were interested in?  Of course that doesn't solve anything for people like me who want all FACS on one page, but if such a page exists some might find it useful.  I could swear there was a discussion about a page like that but I can't find it now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in paying more than I already do for internet access, or adding my 500th VPT query of the year, where I may as well get a cot because I have to ask technodummy questions so often, only to ask a question whose answer won't address the core problem anyway. If I can load the page, I'll still be looking at ridiculously long FACs, unrealistic nominator expectations, and a culture that has wildly diverged from the pleasurable days when FAC functioned like FAR-- an enjoyable and rewarding place to review. Yes, on the list of untranscluded, which provides the same as the new article alerts from Czar does.  But that's my other point.  Unless someone is reading and processing the page top-to-bottom, trends can be missed and priorities can't be set.  And I literally reviewed, every day, by reading top to bottom and seeing where my feedback was most needed.  I made Raul's life easier in 2007 because I saw the TompaDompa problems by going top to bottom, and intervened expeditiously-- I saw which FACs were getting unqualified support and needed priority attention, which needed for an expert or certain type of reviewer to be pinged in, which were close to maturing but had nitpicks to be worked out, etc.  That's how I enjoyed reviewing.  I don't pick a FAC to review because the topic is most interested me (most weren't, and I did all the hurricanes and ships and pop culture and whatever), or because of nominator relationship, or whatever is anyone else's priority for choosing what to review  I picked a FAC to review where I could see my review would be most helpful to Raul in terms of deciding how or whether to  close it. That is still how I could be most useful, and to do that, I read top to bottom.  The culture, where that kind of effort was appreciated is gone, as FAC and FAR culture has diverged, and it's pleasurable to work at FAR because that culture still prevails and is appreciated.  Which brings us back around to the F off thing :)  Doesn't bother me per se, but the culture is outta whack, and the community outside of our walled garden is no longer pleased about dealing with content prima donnas, hence my concern to get content people on ArbCom. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes to getting content people on Arbcom, and I also agree that being told to fuck off doesn't bother me. There are plenty of editors it would bother, though, so I did post at WT:FAC to ask for admin opinions though; surely someone needs to at least let DWB that's unacceptable.  My own reviewing habits when I have time are similar to yours except that I read bottom to top (one reason I like the nominations viewer, as without it that would be impossible).  And though I do skip some topics, I often review FACs I have no particular knowledge of -- I agree with Chesterton that there are no boring subjects, only disinterested minds. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't done more to DWB because I'm still not totally convinced that the acronym is what we think it is. There's always a chance it's not .. and I won't block/raise a fuss until it's shown to be meant. (And because I had some run-ins with DWB at FAC when I was a coord that I expect would be dragged up to say I'm involved.) Ealdgyth (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Inquiring minds want to know (or better stated, I should get my mind out of the gutter ?) Anyway, it really doesn't matter to me. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't recall any admin every telling someone at FAC to be civil to me in all the times I was told to fuck off :) I think people pretty much thought I could take care of myself, so it wasn't needed.  I really don't expect any admin to intervene, as it's probably best to let them cool off anyway.  To the more important matter, which is what brought me back to WT:FAC in spite of the rudeness of the last few years ... the changes in perception are significant, and content contributors need to be more represented on ArbCom.  FA writers no longer have the respect they once did, and this prima donna culture has impacted that ever since Mally was (unfairly) accused of same.  Infobox warriors now carry the clout.  What was once considering canvassing, isn't.  Bludgeoning is a term that has become all the rage, among those who can't keep up with the logic or writing of an editor like Colin.  The changes from competent writers being listened to, to influence being given more to editors who literally have never written an article, is frightful. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not limited to FAC. The best diagnosis I can give is that we've undergone a cultural shift from "editors' claims of subject-matter expertise aren't necessarily reliable, we must have means of checking them" to "it is not possible for editors to have subject-matter expertise". If there's no such thing as expertise about external subject matter (people manifesting an interest in that are suspicious characters who should probably be shipped off to Fandom/Wikia), it follows that the only thing one can be an expert on is Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc., and so that becomes a marker for status. Simple and depressing. Choess (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. My hope was to call attention to how far the FA process has fallen, and to re-invigorate the content-contributor side of things when I came over to link discussions that were happening elsewhere and encourage arb candidates. Instead, by coincidence, a whole ton of deferred housekeeping and behavioral issues came up inconveniently and simultaneously, which obscured the real need, which is to discuss how to restore some gravitas to content contribution.  Best practices were once measured via FAs; those days are gone.  We now have, literally, a situation where people who have never written articles are determining application of policies and guidelines (and not always even engaging those correctly) affecting those who do. And those who do don't seem aware of the level to which this is happening and how broad the impact is.  This is a dramatic shift away from a time when top content contributors were held in high esteem, and listened to.  Core practices expressed via P&G are routinely ignored now, what was once considered canvassing no longer is, what was once considered coordinated editing no longer is, "climbing the greasepole to RFA" no longer involves writing an FA, editors who have never written even a B-class article can canvass and coordinate to advance personal preferences on FAs, and the last refuge of the scoundrel is to throw up charges that others persist too hard against those effects.. It's apparent to me now that it may be too late to change any of this, and I'm probably tilting at windmills. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think part of this is a symptom of the rise of mobile. It's possible to do a lot of things on a phone these days. I can block vandals and revert unconstructive edits, to a certain extent pontificate in project space, check my watchlist, do other admin-y and back-end things all quite well on a phone. In theory, there's no reason I couldn't write articles on a phone but referencing is just too fiddly and too difficult to navigate around and having multiple tabs open on my phone so I can refer directly to the source material (for online sources) just isn't as smooth. It's also, of course, easier (not as satisfying in the long term, but easier) to get a buzz from, say, whacking a vandal (which takes well under a minute) than it is from writing an FA (which I've never done in less than a couple of months from starting writing to the end of the FAC). So I save the content work for when I can get to a bigger screen and a proper keyboard, but many people these days rarely, if ever, touch a laptop or desktop. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a most interesting point to contemplate. That observation brings us back around to the fundamental discord about how different editors use the FAC page.  A number of "old-timers" among us are realizing that it's quite possible that many of the newer (iPhone?) generation don't read FAC top-to-bottom at all, and can't absorb why that is helpful, or why some of us old-timers do, or what is being missed if Coords aren't doing that any more. Some of us simply believe that using a nomination viewer is detrimental to the overall functioning, and because this isn't being heard or acknowledged, we go round and round.  Perhaps those who are working on different devices never go to the full page, and can't understand what is being missed by not having someone who reads the whole page every day ? I'm just guessing here, but it's been most frustrating for more than a few of us to have to hammer through why the loadtime issues are a real problem.  Separately, I worry seriously that in the halls of FAC, there doesn't seem to be awareness of just how far the prestige of the process has fallen-- maybe because some weren't around in the days to know how high it once was?  And separately, separately, I still bristle at the possibility that it was admin persecution of Mally that led to some of his behaviors and Wikicide, that may be still today influencing perception of FA prima donnas-- which the current trends are supporting and furthering (eg the DKW effect, where they got all those FAs on marginal review after chasing off real reviewers). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)