This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I have found further written sources for the Celticity of Ceawlin of Wessex:

Cerdic and his Ancestors by P. K. JOHNSTON Antiquity Vol. 20, Number 77, March 1946.

http://antiquity.ac.uk/Ant/020/0031/Ant0200031.pdf

"Turning to Ceawlin, we find a name of quite uncertain origin, but one which can hardly be Teutonic of any sort. The combination -aw- recurs in Beaw (for *Beowa, from Beowulf ?) and in Gleawanceaster (Gloucester, Glevum). This analogy would suggest a Welsh form something like *Coewlyn (cp. Caer Gloew, for Glev-). The nearest forms which actually occur are Cocholoyn and Cuhelyn, both supposedly derived from the Irish CuChulainn. But the Northumbrian Bede, though he cites the West Saxon form, preferred to spell the name Caelin (22). He knows it not only as that of the Wessex Bretwalda, but also as the name of a brother of St. Chad (ob. 672). This is particularly significant when it is noted that Caelin’s three brothers, Ceadda (St. Chad), St. Cedd and Cynibill all bear names of probably Keltic derivation (23). It is therefore reasonably certain that St. Chad’s brother derived his name from local, Keltic tradition, rather than from any echo of the victories of Ceawlin far off to the south. Caelin may be derived from Keltic *caelos (Welsh cod, ‘ omen ’). Forms Coelin, Coeling occur in Welsh literature, in the sense of ‘ descendants of Coel the Old ’ (24). The name Ceawlin would seem to indicate a claim to Coeling ancestry."

Might be an argument for increasing the prominence of the British origins of the king's name within the wiki page.

Urselius ( talk) 14:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike,

I feel that the ethnological slant to the rise of the sub-Roman kingdoms of Britain was largely retrospective, and just plain wrong. Written long after the events by people like Bede, who, incidentally, called St Chad and his 3 brothers unequivocally "English" even though all four had Celtic British names! Interestingly, Bede states that Chad was consecreted a bishop by one English and two British bishops (though British, they were of the "Roman" persuasion in regard to calculating the date of Easter).

I suspect that a number of the heptarchy "English" kingdoms had native dynasties at their head, the most prominent being that of Wessex but also possibly those of Mercia and Lindsey. At the time I imagine that, just as dynasts (like the Ui Niall) supplanted tribal allegiencies around he time of Christ in Ireland, so dynasts supplanted what remained of tribal or local loyalties in sub-Roman Britain. To the people it would not matter what the ethnic origins of the local strong-man dynast was, just so long as he gave the area he ruled a modicum of peace and was reasonably successful in relations to the surrounding strong-men. Thus polities would arise in Britain headed by native dynasts, who ultimately remained Celtic in language and culture, immigrant dynasts from Germany who Germanised the natives under their rule, and native dynasts whose families eventually became Germanised in language and culture.

I think that a number of the pages describing "English" kings whith Celtic names (vis Cerdic, Ceawlin, Penda, Caedwalla and possibly Cyngils, Cynric etc.) do not show the level of uncertainty about their real ethnicity that is merited by the information availiable.

Urselius ( talk) 19:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Urselius -- just a quick note to say that I'm interested in this but am so busy right now that I can't give it the attention it deserves. I'm going to try to respond to a copyedit request from another editor, since there's a deadline on that, but I don't think I'll be able to get back to you in any reasonable time. I will definitely read and consider your post at some point, but I wouldn't wait for me -- it could be a while. Thanks for the info and I will respond eventually. Mike Christie (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind giving Boydell Shakespeare Gallery a quick copy edit? Jbummary has suggested that its prose isn't up to snuff at FAC. Thanks! Awadewit ( talk) 17:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I will see if I can do this today or tomorrow. My day job is eating all my time at the moment, which is one reason I haven't contributed much in the last week or two, but I should be able to get to this by the end of the weekend (and having an excuse to read your articles is always a pleasure). Mike Christie (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the FA Team is dying and dying fast. We need to pick (not nominate) another mission as we only have one mission (WP:MMM is done). I'm alerting the rest of the big contributers see we can hold this discussion on the talk page. Mm40| Talk| Sign| Review 18:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 10:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious what happened to this article (I wrote it). Did Pervasive ever get back to you? - Tbsdy lives ( talk) 18:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

They did, and I think are somewhat interested in fixing it, but when it lost FA status it presumably got moved to the back burner. I wouldn't be surprised if they simply don't get around to it. The person I know there indicated it was an interesting idea, but I'm sure it's not a top priority for them. I guess we just wait and see. Mike Christie (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, I'd still say it's a more informative article than anything else on the Internet :-) Tbsdy lives ( talk) 10:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 05:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"who was also launching": Actually, Galileo had been around for some time (years?) prior to McCaffrey's acquisition of Galaxy. Pepso2 ( talk) 05:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. If you spot any errors, please feel free to fix them as you see fit. Currently I'm just trying to get more information onto the page -- I know it's going to need clean up and reorganization once it gets more content. Mike Christie (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

But I was wondering if you would be interested in applying for adminship. They love article writers there, and you're certainly one of the best we have. I'd gladly nom you in you're interested. Let me know. Wizardman 21:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been asked before; thank you for the compliment. I will decline, for now at least, for a couple of reasons. The main one is that I'm about to take a contract job for three months and my life is going to be fairly disrupted until at least September; I suspect I won't be very active until then at least. (I might be able to take some of my references with me, in which case I will at least be able to keep up on article writing.) The other is that I don't currently plan to get involved in many activities where adminship would help, and I haven't got much recent experience at places such as AfD, so it might not be that easy a nomination. I don't think I'd ever be an active admin. I do have rollback, which has been intermittently useful, and I think that will do for a while.

Thanks for asking, though; I appreciate it. Perhaps next year. Mike Christie (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

gosh, I would have asked, but ... I thought you were an admin! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. There has been some discussion of how to improve the FA-Team's functioning. It's be grand if you could comment on the new suggested structure, and perhaps also look at our current proposals. Thanks. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Mission 4, a series of articles on the Everglades, could do with help from the FA-Team! Thanks! Awadewit ( talk) 13:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike. I just noticed that this user has gotten himself reported to the ArbCom. I immediately remembered our interaction with him, & how the experience led me to monitor his edits for a while until Real Life(tm) demands on my time forced me to sharply curtail my activities here (in short, I became a father). If you had the same concern about this person, you may want to contribute to the evidence section of the Request. -- llywrch ( talk) 19:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw your transition to fatherhood on your blog; congratulations! As to Yorkshirian, I'd be happy to comment, but I'm uncertain what to post as I've not contributed to an Arbcom case before. I'd be willing to put together a set of diffs showing the interaction you saw, which I feel demonstrated quite uncivil behaviour. Should I add a statement to the Arbcom page? Or is there a subsequent phase in which those diffs might be relevant as evidence? Mike Christie (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What I think would be the best approach is to simply provide an account of your/our interaction with him -- with diffs or links to sections, of course. Add it to the /Evidence page, otherwise you might become a party to this matter which I don't think is needed. (On the other hand, if you want a piece of this, go ahead & add your name to the opening page.) The important point is to show a consistent pattern of behavior -- one that a person remembers six months later. Oh, & thanks for the positive thoughts. -- llywrch ( talk) 16:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just want you to know that you've been missed at FAC...and that we're tied! :) Awadewit ( talk) 16:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that was coming up -- congratulations! You're going to pass me, too; I won't be able to do anything at FAC until at least September. I've moved from Texas to Long Island for a summer job, and it looks possible that I'll move up here permanently. If so, I think things will stay disrupted for a while. I brought a couple of refs with me and I'm doing a little to prep some articles, but it will be a while till I can get enough concentrated time with my references to take something to FAC. So it's up to you to catch Hink!

Re the FA Team; I still have the page on my watchlist, but I don't have any spare time so I am refraining from participating. I hope to have some involvement again once my life settles down in either TX or NY. Congrats again on number 24! Mike Christie (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on the current FA-Team proposals. Thanks! Awadewit ( talk) 16:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Indigenous people of the Everglades region, Draining and development of the Everglades and Restoration of the Everglades have all recently become FAs! King Arthur is now at FAC! Thanks to our hard-working team members! Awadewit ( talk) 18:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a long time ago! I moved Æthelburh because it was ambiguous. The edit summary says I picked Æthelburg of Kent over Æthelburh of Kent because that's what the PASE uses. No reason not to move her to Æthelburh of Kent though. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Mike, thanks for the kind words. It's not just down to me though, Shyamal did a lot with the images in particular, and Snowmanradio rejigged the table. I also appreciate the efforts put in Adawedit with his very thorough ce. jimfbleak ( talk) 05:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Mike, I found a great Frank R. Paul illustration for Amazing Stories. I am doing a page on Experimenter Publishing. I am going to move Experimenter Publishing bankruptcy to Experimenter Publishing and replace it with my new version next week. I still have a few more days of edits, I am creating it in a sandbox User:Swtpc6800/Experimenter. I would appreciate any comments and a copy edit when it goes live.

I have also acquired 3 volumes of Sam Moskowitz science fiction history books. I only wanted to read the Hugo Gernsback chapter but got all 3 for $10. -- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 19:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do a review; just let me know when you're ready. It might not be very quick, though, as I don't have a lot of spare time for Wikipedia.

If you want someone to take the Moskowitz volumes off your hands, let me know. Which ones did you get? Seekers of Tomorrow? Mike Christie (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I got the 1974 paperback editions of these three.

Explorers of The Infinite

Seekers of Tomorrow

Modern Masterpieces of Science Fiction

The total weight for all three books is about four pounds. I live in the US, the postage to Europe is about $30. In the US, book rate is about $4. You can have one or all for the postage. My wikipeda email works. -- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 01:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I emailed you. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Félix Houphouët-Boigny needs to be copyedited and peer reviewed. We would appreciate any and all help from the crack members of the FA-Team! Sign up here. Merci! Awadewit ( talk) 12:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the new NPL discussion and thanks for your chiming in. You might want to look at a related deletion discussion as well. I've always appreciated your work and would hope you may've seen my name around as well. JJB 14:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi -- I've seen your name but I don't think we've worked on any articles together, have we? I've been fairly restricted in my editing recently so haven't been around much. I take it you're an NPL member? I think I recognize your name, but I can't connect it to a nom. I'm Lucifer in the NPL; not sure if you knew that. I'll post a bit more on the NPL talk page in a moment. Mike Christie (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Are the volume numbers for 80-82 supposed to be 27-28? THey seem to replace volumes number 53-55... Circeus ( talk) 19:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. I had to delay answering till I got back to Texas so I could go through the issues themselves to verify that the numbers given are right, but I recall something from the 1978 edition of Nicholls mentioning this so I was pretty sure it was right. I'll mention it in the caption, since others will wonder too. I'll see if I can find an explanation but I don't know of one. The best I can do is to suggest that it's something to do with Fantastic: the last volume of which was 27, with October 1980, the last issue, being 27/11. It's as if they tried to take over the Fantastic volume numbering by mistake and then screwed that up too! However, I haven't seen that theory written down anywhere else so I don't think I can mention it. Mike Christie (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the formatting, bit of a newbie around here. Cheers! -- Mstmaurice ( talk) 05:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You were undoubtefly right about the Dictionary of Literary Biography article. I've deleted it to allow editors to start over from scratch. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I wasn't familiar with Primetime, but now I know about him I'll keep an eye open. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks indeed, Mike! At this stage, the medieval army keeps bouncing back in waves to try to stop these improvements in their tracks. I don't think they'll succeed, since people such as you voice their opinions. Tony (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hugo Gernsback sold Modern Electrics and then started the Electrical Experimenter. I traced the history of Modern Electrics and Modern Publishing in this new article: Electrician and Mechanic

Ashley says that it merged with Popular Science Monthly in April 1915.

• Ashley, Michael (2000). Time Machines: The Story of the Science-Fiction Pulp Magazines from the Beginning to 1950. Liverpool University Press. pp. p. 30. ISBN  978-0853238553. {{ cite book}}: |pages= has extra text ( help)

It was in October 1915.

I have nominated the article for Did You Know. Any comments welcome. SWTPC6800 ( talk) 03:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

... Mike, I think I'm not understanding the proposal at all, so rather than clog the FAC talk page, I'll try to follow here on your page until I do get it. Here's the only part I understand. First, it reads as if the proposal would make me a "gatekeeper"; something doesn't get in for FAC review until I let it in. Oh My Gosh ! Do we really want that? (I don't; I want the deficient FACs to simply be dealt with via the Oppose button, why on EARTH would I want to sort through a 75-article queue for a bunch of FACs that should have gone to PR instead?) Second, I'm unclear what FACs are doing while they're in the queue. Nothing? Why ? I'm just not getting it. Explain it to me here please so I don't clog the FAC page ?? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're anything but clueless (ref your edit summary) so I suspect I'm not being clear. Sometimes the hurly-burly of a talk page can make it difficult to have a quiet conversation so I think it's a good idea to hive this off here for the moment. Hey, I know, let's talk about this on IRC!

Um, ok, seriously. First a couple of direct responses, then I'll outline how I thought this could work. Responses: no, you wouldn't want to sort through 75 articles; I never meant that you would. Second, yes, FACs are doing nothing in the queue but waiting. Why? So they don't divert the limited resources in the active area.

Here's an analogy that I hope will clarify it. Let's visualize a paper version of FAC. It would look something like this: Ealdgyth, Awadewit, Jbmurray, and a dozen others are all sitting in comfy armchairs in the FAC reading room, and you have a desk at the front. (Raul has a desk up there too, but it's usually empty these days.) Every now and then someone comes in and drops a FAC in the inbox on your desk. Every now and then Ealdgyth or El Cobbola or someone else comes up, riffles through the pile, picks one out and reads it, and makes notes on it, then drops it back in the inbox. You go through the stack once or twice a day, and stay familiar with what's going on, and promote or archive -- pulling them out of that stack and dropping them in other inboxes.

What I'm suggesting, in the paper version, is simply this: the FACs are dropped in a "queue" inbox, not in the one the readers pull from. You move FACS from the queue inbox to the FAC reader inbox whenever you want to. You don't read them first, or select, or screen, or anything; you just look up every now and then, see that the pile for the FAC readers is getting a bit thin, and grab a few more and move them over.

OK, end of paper analogy. In the real-life Wiki version, there would be a WP:FAC/queue page, and you would cut a few transclusions from the bottom and add them to the top of the FAC page. That's all you'd do; it should take a few seconds.

I hope that's made the "what" clear. The real question is "why": what benefit do you gain, or does the FAC process gain? So let me see if I can characterize what the problems are:

• People are not opposing when they need to
• Some reviewers have burned out and others are at risk of doing so
• You yourself are under a fairly heavy workload that you have limited ability to dial up or down
• There are specialist reviews (content, images, accurate use of refs) for which reviewers are hard to find.

Consider Wikipedia itself; editors work on what interests them. You can't force them to work on core topics first: there is far more work to do than there is labour available, so we do not make progress in a clear way; instead, areas of the jungle are cleared by editorial preference. I propose that FAC is suffering from this same undersupply of labour, and inability to guide where that labour should be applied. Reviewers come in and review whatever articles they feel like reviewing. Some worthy souls respond to your pleas and learn image review, or do link checking, but you will never have enough labour to be able to guarantee quality reviews by that method.

So if you can't increase the labour force, and you (mostly) can't guide the labour in any specific direction, the only alternative is to reduce the to-do list so it is commensurate in size with the workforce available. The active list would be FAC's to-do list; the queue would be the work that needs to be done, but which are holding back because the reviewing workforce hasn't finished with the active list yet. To go back to the paper analogy for a moment, it's as if everyone in the room said to you, sitting at your desk, "Hey, Sandy, can we have some more to look at?" and you said, "No, guys, there's a bunch here that need more comments on; I don't want to add any more to the list till we get some of these old ones cleared up." And then (I hope!) a couple of reviewers would respond and would address those FACs -- without feeling burned out because of the ten new ones coming in at the same time that they also wanted to respond to ... because you wouldn't be adding ten new ones till the old ones were taken care of.

One final point: given this mechanism, you could choose to keep the queue empty if reviewers were keeping up. Everything would be moved straight from the queue to the active area. You'd only hold up the queue when you needed some additional effort. And, you know, this could reinvigorate the urgents list: it would become the "clean up these so I can move stuff in from the queue" list, and would get more attention, I feel. And if it didn't, you'd wait a bit.

Having made the argument, I don't want you to think I am heart-and-soul committed to it. I simply think it's a pretty interesting idea, and seems to address a real problem that is not currently addressed. My main concern is that I don't think I was able to convey it to you properly. If I've done so, and you still don't like it, no problem; I just didn't want you to dismiss it without my having accurately communicated it to you.

By the way, what do you think about the future scaling issue? You do Herculean work, but surely you couldn't cope with a quadrupling of the workload? I do think some thought needs to be given to how to scale up FAC, at some point. Have you any ideas about how that might eventually work? Mike Christie (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

wow, this is long :-) I haven't finished my morning watchlist yet; I'll be back in a bit. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot to digest (let's go to IRC !! LOL). On scaling, I really don't see it being an issue because I know how often I'm sitting around twiddling my thumbs, unable to promote/archive because I don't have enough reviewer input. When I do archive unilaterally, I get "I kill you" on my talk page :-) I strongly believe that what is really driving the current backlog is that reviewers are loathe to oppose because they know I'll eventually deal with those anyway; that is, they are leaving the burden to me. If the clearly deficient FACs got early and often opposes, I could reduce the list size to 25 any time. Those that are clearly deficient do not require a lot of reviewer time; what has changed (IMO) is that when I was reviewing, I entered a long oppose with examples covering 1a, 1b ... 4, others agreed, end of story, Raul could close the FAC. That no longer happens, partly because of specialization, and partly because reviewers (I believe) are confident I'm not going to let deficient articles through. Reviewers, for reasons I don't understand, are spending inordinate amounts of time building FAs line by line at FAC instead of just giving them a list of what needs to be addressed and telling them to come back when ready. The idea of me sitting at a desk at the head of the reviewer line and deciding when an article gets in strikes terror in my heart :-) and honestly, I don't feel like it's fair to stick our best FA writers in a queue and tell them wait until others clear out multiple deficient articles that came ahead of them in line. The unprepared FACs take inordinate amounts of time so this approach seems to be penalize those that came to FAC prepared, and those can often be quickly passed. Here's an alternate question: why do you think reviewers are afraid to oppose these days, and from whence comes this notion of painstakingly building FAs line by line while at FAC? Has something about my management of FAC led to this? What I'm not understanding is why newer reviewers aren't approaching FAC as I used to, which was to run through at least once a week and cut the page down to those that had a chance relative to those that could benefit better from other content review processes, giving Raul enough to archive the others. That was how I approached the work (give Raul enough to go on so he could close as many as he could quickly), but the approach seems to have completely changed, and I'm afraid it's because of something in the way I'm managing FAC. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I rarely oppose because I don't want to be negative; I want to encourage reviewers. (Of course I haven't done a FAC review in months, but I'm hoping to get back to it once I work off a couple of GA obligations.) I am more interested in working with an editor to fix problems than I am in getting a weak article out of the queue. I agree that opposes speed up the process, but I'm just not motivated to work that way. I would eventually oppose if something wasn't fixed, but I hate to just put oppose up there without trying to give feedback first and see if it can be fixed. It feels so brutal. I wonder if other reviewers feel the same way.

You're asking for me to put "oppose" in, and then only change it if it got fixed before you archived it. I see why you want that, but I don't really want to do it -- and that's my earlier point about you being unable to do anything more than cajole the reviewers. Anyway, you clearly understand the idea now, and you have a reasonable objection, so I'll stop propagandizing for it. I do think you don't have a solution for your own problem, though, and I can't think of one, I'm afraid. Mike Christie (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have in fact come to agree with the notion that we should be quicker with the "oppose" button... and in fact, tried this out for the first time on your current FAC! But I still felt I was being rather unfair... -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You weren't being unfair. But I bet it was easier to use it because you know me and knew how I was likely to respond. I wonder if that's a key point; it's easier to oppose with editors one knows are FAC veterans, because they know what to do about opposes. Opposing a FAC newbie -- well, one is scared of driving them off. Mike Christie (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I misspoke. I used to Oppose those that looked hopeless, but put up a long list of "Fixes needed" on others and come back in a few days to either switch to Oppose or engage further if the nominator had really responded and it looked like someone who could get the job done. Yes, I'm not sure we have a solution, but if the problem is that reviewers don't want to oppose and do want to build FAs at FAC, then none of our solutions may work ... well ... maybe if we went to that idea of a pre-FAC check to get the sourcing, images and MoS stuff out of the way before they came to FAC, but would't that put us back in the same spot of where do we find reviewers to do the pre-FAC check and isn't that what PR should be doing? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the difference in the way we're thinking is that you have a clear image of how the process could (or should) work, and would like to encourage reviewers to work it that way. I'm thinking of it as a set of resources with certain abilities and preferences, and trying to use those elements to construct a workable process, even if that's different from the existing one (or from the ideal one). Is there some middle ground? Mike Christie (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, we used to grapple with that question at the content review workshop :-) There probably is, and I should probably stand back (something Raul is much better at than I am) and see if y'all can come up with something. Just don't put me at a desk at the head of the line as the gatekeeper (one "I kill you" per day is enough :-), and recognize that somewhere along the line, someone is going to have to oppose the truly deficient FACs that are taking a disproportionate amount of reviewer resources. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, I don't see where the "I kill you" would come from; you'd just be saying "here's how much work we can get through". If that were your only objection, I'd do the gatekeeping for you. Just say "thirty FACs at a time, no more" and I'd open the gates and keep thirty in FAC and the rest in the queue. Who's to blame then?

Actually, I do have an objection to the plan, but it's different from yours. My concern is that in throttling down what people do want to do, we would not necessarily ramp up what people are not doing, so we might lose more than we'd gain. However, people with your long-term ability to work at the level of effort you are providing are rare, and I don't believe we are building a lasting process when we build one around your capabilities. Not to say we shouldn't take advantage of you; and we are! But that's why you sometimes feel taken advantage of .... Mike Christie (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not understanding how it works to have you and Awadewit get in line behind the gazillion roads, hurricanes, video games, musicians etc. and how that would be good for production of featured articles or the article writers. This idea puts the writers who work on long and difficult topics at a disadvantage behind those who can churn out multiple shorter articles and run them through FAC for a final tuneup, since there will always be more of those in the queue. Yes, we need a solution ... not sure we've hit on it yet, though. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mike, you noted it'll take you a few days to take another look at the concern I raised - when you've done so, could you please ping my talk page please. I'd rather not miss it, and I would like to be able to support once that's fixed up. Thanks. Giggy ( talk) 07:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Mike, I guess you are pretty busy at the moment, but if is at all possible, could you cast a reviewer's swift eye over Rhinemaidens (Wagner) at peer review? It's not a popular topic, I know – the article waited for ages for its GA review, and it might wait as long at PR. But it needs a cold eye cast on it by someone fresh. If it's not possible for you, I fully understand, but I thought I'd ask. Brianboulton ( talk) 18:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I will certainly look. I am pretty busy, so please do nudge me again if I haven't started on it in the next day or so, but I would be glad to review it. Mike Christie (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike, if you have any thoughts and had the time to have a look at this query about sources for Carmen Rodriguez, I'd be most grateful. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 22:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please accept this notice to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving five articles to GA status every month. We hope to see you there!-- LAA Fan sign review 02:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC) {{{1}}}

I mean your proposal in bold (also bold proposal) about FSA's. However, I would also like for people to consider my alternate proposal (at Wikipedia_talk:FAC#Even more arbitrary section break) ... if that doesn't work for people, I'd support a vote on your proposal. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 22:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm just going to watch for a bit, rather than vote on anything. I've done more than my share of prodding the conversation along, and I'm pretty sure most people are exhausted (me included!). It looks pretty definite now that the Space SF FAC is not going to be promoted, so that may function as a precedent, to some degree. What I think will happen is that we'll end up not too far from where Yomangani suggests we should be: using 1b, and possibly 2b, to limit short articles at FAC, and interpreting "neglecting no major facts or sources" without reference to what's actually been published.

I'm not sure this is the best outcome, but it seems to me that perhaps the real debate is between two fundamentally different views of FA. Does "FA" mean the best Wikipedia has to offer, or the best an article on a given topic can achieve? The former point of view implies no short articles, and it implies FA=TFA as Ling argued. The latter point of view is how I've always thought of FA, but perhaps in its origin it was the former. There is a consistency of viewpoint that seems well-explained by this division -- e.g. those who support 1b/2b as a constraint also believe FA means the best WP can offer, and many of those people also supported wordcounts because it eliminated shorter (and hence less impressive) articles.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with you that there was always some confusion or perhaps ambivalence about what "best" meant. I got my two cents in at Wikipedia_talk:FACR#Break 1. If we don't call short articles "featured articles", then I would prefer calling them something mousy like "DYK" (and making them DYKs of course) to "excellent" or "featured short articles", on the theory that it will be easier to convince editors unfamiliar with FAC that they could succeed. I've also tried in the past to get people interested in new forms of ego-boo and new awards, with zero success. If people are motivated by awards at all, they seem to want the existing awards. (Feel free to respond here, at WT:FAC, or not at all.) - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 18:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way. I don't want to muck up the structure you've set up there, but there's another unresolved issue. We haven't examined the "substantial" TOC issue (which I have an opinion about, but I'm finding that my position as FAC delegate means I should shut up and let others discuss ... even if it takes the community two weeks to come back around the original 1(b) question I raised :-). If you're getting a broad audience to weigh in at WIAFA, that (2b) is related to the (1b) issue and needs to be resolved. A "substantial" TOC has almost always been a requirement. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As I said to Awadewit, I think this debate is at a deeper level about whether FA still only represents work we are willing to showcase, or whether it now represents all articles that are as good as it is possible to make them. If the "unless" form of 1b comes out as the consensus version, then 2b would have to be examined, but it seems to me that 2b can wait. Personally, I suspect that "substantial" was intended as a MOS comment -- that is, tiny TOCs were to be avoided in big articles. Since FA was originally intended for big, impressive articles, it wouldn't have been necessary to say "substantial" to enforce a length restriction. Mike Christie (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

For me, it is about two different things: 1) what we want to present to the world as "the best of Wikipedia" and 2) what we want to consider the best. As for the first, it is a public relations consideration and as for the second, I personally cannot consider an article very good if it is missing lots of information that I know is theoretically available. Awadewit ( talk) 19:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about measuring two different things: "is it as good as it can be now?", and "is it as good as it can likely be in the future?" I don't object to measuring both; the question is which one should FA measure. Would you agree we want to know both things? Mike Christie (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that "as good as it can be now" means good enough to call "the best of Wikipedia", I suppose. Awadewit ( talk) 19:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that Space SF, whether FA or not, is not as good as almost any other FA. I'd be happy for it to be banned from TFA; I'd even be happy for a hard wordcount limit to be used to draw distinctions between some FAs and others, e.g. for TFA purposes. The sense in which I think it's one of the best articles in Wikipedia is that it meets the FA criteria, which few articles do. Mike Christie (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike, I'm worried that the distinction in the wording of the various options is still convoluted. Will you get people making declarations who haven't fully understood? Any chance of capping the existing discussion, sorting the wording, then re-launching the discussion? I haven't caught up this morning (just sorting the archives took me a while, and I haven't started on my watchlist), so I haven't fully digested the discussion there, but on a really quick glance, I can't tell what each option is really saying. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Aaargh. I hate to do any restart-like thing; I've notified most people already. I really think only the new wording, suggested by Awadewit, is at all confusing. I'll see if I can knock out a brief gloss underneath that one; will that help? Do you feel the others are not clear? Mike Christie (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there are other options we haven't thought of? :) Awadewit ( talk) 20:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I haven't had time to absorb most of it. I woke up to straw poll discussed and launched all at once, while I slept :-) I haven't yet had time to figure out how the new wording affects hurricanes and roads: the issues that launched this whole discussion. OK, I'm going to shut up now and focus on trying to get through my morning watchlist :-) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Allright, I caught up over there now, and I'm a bit concerned at how fast that went from proposed wording to straw poll (basically, in the eight hours I was sleeping). At WT:FAC, we went from the straw poll to a summary of consensus in 24 hours which also may have influenced results: I think seven days would have been better. I believe these discussions should proceed more slowly and with more deliberation. I would have liked to have fleshed out the wording choices a bit better before moving to "voting" at its worst. Certainly, throwing up a straw poll that will keep certain Projects churning out 500-word FAs isn't the most deliberative way to approach the topic, particularly when it's already apparent at WT:FAC and in the actual FAC discussions that editors are divided on the matter, and when the wording on one of the "even if" options is still a bit convoluted and unclear, putting it at a disadvantage. Perhaps I see this differently because I'm reading through the comments on these FACs and trying to decide which are actionable; I'm looking, obviously, for a clear resolution so I can be sure I'm enacting the intent of the community when I close a FAC. I'm afraid the suddenness of the straw poll is leaving me with doubts that we're going to end up with a working, actionable version of WIAFA that reflects the earlier FAC discussions, and I'm further concerned that we may be risking fixing something that isn't broken, by breaking it. I'm sorry I didn't get on this sooner this morning, but it moved from proposal to wide notification in a matter of a few hours, before I was even involved. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I keep trying to highlight that people are choosing the definition that, in practice, were are not using. Not that pointing that out is doing much good. :) Ah, wikis. Awadewit ( talk) 00:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I might need until the end of the month (until November first or second) to get the issues fixed to satisfaction due to homework as I approach the end of a grading period. Thanks for the review. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll check in with you again if I don't hear anything by that time. If you don't think you'll be able to get to it, probably the best thing is for me to fail it so you can work on the article at your leisure. You can then just resubmit it when you get it ready. However, I'm happy to leave it on hold if you think you can get to it in that time. Mike Christie (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What's the plural of consensus? Consensuses? Consensii? The problem with polls of this sort is that they often produce conflicting or overlapping consensus of opinion. In market research there are "open ends", yes/no questions, and balanced scales ("very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, very dissatisfied" etc.). Wiki polls (particularly when created on the fly) hybridize the first with the second and can't manage the third. Thus I'm wary of them. And as Sandy notes, I'm not even sure that people know exactly what their vote might mean. Finally, the questions are leading. Why these three options? It's in this sense especially that I find the current poll premature.

But there's no good solutions at the moment; I don't blame you for trying and didn't mean to imply as much. You're right that tens of thousands of words have been wasted. If we want to poll, I would go this way:

1. Do you believe the 1b wording should changed? If you get a yes (which is likely) then:
2. Should it be changed to include or exclude short articles?

And so on. Do not add derivative options in asking a question and only ask the second after the first is certain, the third after the second is certain, etc. That's how CATI does it anyway :). Marskell ( talk) 14:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I also get around to commenting on your FAC. I had been mulling it for some time. I hope my argument makes sense. Marskell ( talk) 15:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the talking is not likely to stop. And yes, it is becoming almost ideological in the competing ideas of FA on display. All I'm suggesting above is that any polling ought to be methodical. Your third option is gaining support, for instance, but we haven't clearly considered the potential for misuse. Who will police the "unless"? Sandy? Or me at FAR? Things like this need to be clarified before moving to a poll. But there's so much to bloody read right now I don't want to add more words. Marskell ( talk) 16:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd add two other preliminatry questions to Marskell's list:

• 1a. Should 1(b) be coupled at all to whether or not sources are likely to exist? Some editors interpret it that way, although WIAFA is silent. It's not clear to me that there is agreement on this, which is why we shouldn't fiddle wording until editors really understand what they're getting, so I can really know how to interpret the result when closing FACs. WIAFA is currently silent on the matter: the proposals add to it without understanding if the community sees a problem or if we're handling it fine as is, on a case-by-case basis. To me, there's a big difference between not knowing Plato's birthdate, and a tropical storm that affected no one and nothing and only gained notability on Wiki because numerous national organizations report on every minor weather occurrence, even though there is nothing of substance that can be said about said minor occurrence.
• 1b. The TOC "substantial" issue. If editors believe a substantial TOC is required for a FAC, that kind of covers it, and we need no further changes. But that argues in favor of a separate short process. But we don't know how editors feel about that yet.

We moved forward too quickly without sorting the building blocks along the way. The wisdom of the long-standing criterion is that they don't overprescribe, so editorial judgment comes in to play. My other concern is that I'm looking at the proposed wording in terms of how I would judge whether an Oppose is actionable, and I'm seeing problems. So, we should carefully step through each issue before coming close to the point of formulating wording. HTH, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, to avoid repetition I'll refer you to my comments at Marskell's talk page.

To your specific points: the issue of possible future sources seems inextricably tied to "comprehensive" to me. "Substantial" seems much less central to the argument; or at most I'd say it's a separate argument. I wouldn't think it would be profitable to mix that into the current conversation; that would go against the simple progression Marskell suggested. On the question of whether the community sees a problem: I took the recent extensive discussions as evidence that there is no consensus on what "comprehensive" means. That's a problem, surely. Awadewit has rightly pointed out that many opposes are based on one interpretation but many people are indicating a preference for a form of words that asserts the opposite interpretation. Doesn't that indicate a problem with the criterion? Mike Christie (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I do tend to agree with Sandy here, but on the other hand, I'm not a big fan of "let's argue it to death" either... which is why I avoid policy pages. I just know what I see, and I'm seeing more and more shorter articles where the scope is being chopped into smaller and smaller bits coming to FAC. (Case in point Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean, the main article on Dean is only 5200 words, was there really a need for a separate article? And should that article REALLY need to be a FA? Or the FAC on the 3 (or however many miles it was) road in Utah.) I think Sandy and I are the only ones that see most articles that come to FAC, and I'm doing FLC too, so if you think it's bad now, you need to check out FLC, where it's getting pretty insane on the scope of the lists (every obscure band has a discography page, lists of colleges in provinces/states/lists of starting pitchers, etc.) I guess I'm afraid that FA will go the way of FL, where the idea seems to be find an obscure topic, break it down into small enough chunks so you can get a star (I could very well be being unfair here, but it's a concern.) When I contrast that with the bothers that Deacon or you or Adam or Angus (or plenty of others) go through to get articles up to snuff for FA, it does hack me a bit. And it diminishes the FAs that have been worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think avoiding clarification of 1b is the way to resolve it. What I'd like to see is some sequence such as 1) consensus is reached that only existing sources count, but we hold off on updating FACR till the implications are resolved; 2) it's agreed that an oppose based on "should be merged" is valid, and/or we agree a definition of short articles by hard word count, with some different treatment for them. Or: 1) we agree future scholarship must be considered; and so 2) articles that can't pass FACR but are complete w.r.t. existing sources get (if they need it) a separate process. To be more concise: yes, we'll need to go beyond just updating FACR to get this right. Any clarifying outcome would satisfy me. At the moment the ambiguity has us in limbo. Mike Christie (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as in the process of trying to clarify, we don't inadvertently make the problem worse. Right now, we have the possibility of editorial judgment. On Met. History, editors can argue that there's no reason that article shouldn't have been merged back to the hurricane. Editorial judgment and consensus apply at FAC, until/unless we overconstrain the criterion. And I do see an issue here of the big picture: I think Ealdgyth is correct in saying that few editors see every single FAC as she and I do. You may be seeing Kings or magazines or bios, while Ealdgyth is seeing magazines, bios, her Bishops, your Kings, roads, hurricanes and albums. Erick theoretically could be part of the storm season article: editors need to be able to argue that at FAC, without being constrained by overprescription in WIAFA. One short road article may be rejected because the road was artificially chopped up into small segments to generate more stars at WBFAN, while another road article of the same length could be accepted. I disagree that we're in limbo: reviewers are speaking up on FACs as they should (and starting to engage their brains as a result of this discussion :-))). FAC is working. We got into a jam for a bit because, frankly, reviewers stopped paying attention to the high number of short FAs that were running through (and I agree with Ealdgyth that there is fallout in the FLC-inspired search for more stars and awards) and weren't actually evaluating them completely wrt WIAFA. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you're saying here, Sandy. "FAC is working"; yes, perhaps better than it has recently, if as you say reviewers are improving too. A good thing. That doesn't mean there's no issue here, surely? Are you saying that it is up to reviewer discretion and common sense to decide if an oppose such as this one is valid? (I picked that particular oppose because most of the others rely less completely on that one word "comprehensive".) As I understand it at the moment, this oppose is valid, despite the fact that many FAC regulars feel that if my assertion about lack of sources is right, then this isn't the right interpretation of 1b. I agree that editorial judgement is a good thing; continually refining rules sometimes irons out the possibility of applying common sense. But I think we have here a genuine difference of opinion, and it should be (eventually) sorted out.

I don't want to make things worse, as you say; that's why I'll try to avoid posting much at FACR for a bit. I hope the discussion there moves towards a useful outcome.

Incidentally, when are you planning to archive Space SF? I'd have thought it's an open-and-shut archive as the comments currently stand. Are you planning to leave it up for a bit more to see if others want to comment? I don't think there's much chance we can reach a "conclusion" on the various ongoing conversations, so I won't at all mind if you want to cut the thread now. It's served its purpose of focusing comments on a particular short article with limited resources. Fine with me if you think it's useful to leave it there, but I don't think there's any need to. Up to you, of course. Mike Christie (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there's an issue, but the proposed remedies haven't yielded clarity yet, so we shouldn't break the parts that are working by moving too quickly to specific wording. Interesting, I don't like to discuss ongoing FACs since my input may affect consensus, but why do you consider the oppose that you highlighted to be actionable under current WIAFA? He hasn't even stated *why* he thinks it's not comprehensive. As they stand, some points of WIAFA are open to editor consensus because they aren't prescribed, but the arguments do need to be backed with some logic or evidence.

When am I going to archive? Well, if I told 'ya I'd have to kill 'ya :-) There's been nothing to promote/archive lately, because most of the FAC reviewers seem to be tied up on talk page discussions rather than reviewing articles :-)) And in spite of editors clamoring for me to keep the list size down and close FACs sooner, if you look at the dates, you'll see we have only one FAC running beyond the normal time, and if you look at each FAC, you'll see there is almost nothing I can close due to lack of review (well, I haven't read FAC today), so I'm not concerned about closing right now. If reviewers don't start entering declarations, the list will grow. I don't like to open seven tabs to archive only one or two FACs at a time, although I do it when there are problems with list size. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I know your memory is phenomenal, but I'll assume even you can't remember all the habits of every FA nominator, so I'll mention that I try not to complain about unactionable opposes. My goal is to try to figure out what it is that the opposer is really trying to get at -- how it could be phrased as an actionable oppose, in other words -- and work on that. This FAC has been hard for me because I have found myself with opposes that I really don't know how to deal with. The particular oppose I diffed above is based on "comprehensive"; I took it to be a request for the information a reasonable editor might expect to see in an article on a magazine: circulation, contemporary critical reception, editorial policy, payment rates, literary influence, etc. It's actionable if "comprehensive" includes future sources -- the action is to withdraw the FAC and wait for someone to write the sources. That's the sense in which I meant "limbo" -- is that actionable or not? Perhaps you read that particular one differently, but I think we agree that there is an underlying issue there that could lead to a disagreement on whether an oppose were actionable.

No hurry to close it, of course; I don't have anything else lined up to go to FAC. Interestingly, I'm working on Amazing Stories, which had two companion magazines in the 1930s: one, an annual, had one issue, the other had a couple of dozen. Prior to this set of discussions I would probably have done an article on each of them; now I think I'll probably end up doing an article called Amazing Stories companion magazines or something similar. The "merge" argument does make sense to me as an oppose. As for the Space FAC, I don't usually try to get inside the head of the closer. If I have to calculate whether an oppose counts, it's too close for comfort. My goal is always zero opposes, so when I see it running around 50-50 like it is now I tend to assume it's doomed. Anyway, I'll wait and see. Mike Christie (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, ponder Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hillary Rodham Clinton/archive2 for a bit in terms of weighting consensus versus valid actionable criteria-based opposes (note that I didn't close that FAC). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Seems like around fifty-fifty on the raw support/oppose count, and it also seems clear that the closer must have allowed the 1e concerns to be legitimate, otherwise it would probably have been promoted, since that was the most often cited concern. I had always thought 1e was intended for edit wars, not situations like this; in fact I know there's a quote somewhere of Raul saying exactly that. Maybe we should start on poll on clarifying the wording on this at FACR ... er, just kidding. Mike Christie (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"What's your opinion on the converse case: if you were convinced the article on the publisher can't be written, what then?" Then my "leaning toward oppose" would become a "leaning toward support." If you can't find much to create the publisher in this particular case, I'd suggest a section on the Republic Features Syndicate within the Space Science Fiction Magazine article and a redirect to it. A covering note could explain that there is actually more extant material on the publication than the publisher. Marskell ( talk) 14:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Mike I have no real graphics programs at my disposal (they aren't really my thing). If you could sort the text that would be great, thanks for your hard work so far - Dumelow ( talk) 16:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good Mike. I sometimes do not see the point of the thumbnail sizing policy in cases like this but as long as it is readable at full res then I don't suppose people will mind clicking on it to read it, cheers - Dumelow ( talk) 16:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I went and talked with him. We'll see how it goes, hopefully with a bit of time away he'll have calmed down. Wizardman 16:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike, You've probably noticed that the FA-Team has just launched a mission to help WikiProject AP Biology 2008 and WikiProject North of the Rio Grande improve articles towards featured quality. As one of those in favour of such a mission, I'm hoping you would like to join in and support a few articles from one or both of the projects. If so, please add your name to the articles you are watchlisting on the mission page. Thanks, Geometry guy 19:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for covering all the articles I haven't! Watch out for Chicano literature, though: I hear the lead editor is one of the most troublesome members of the class. Geometry guy 20:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

During the peer review you suggested that the formal name of this article should be Rhinemaidens, with Rhinemaidens (Wagner) linked to it. There seems to be consensus on this move, which will require admin action. Could you do this, please? Thanks, Brianboulton ( talk) 15:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't help, as I'm not an admin. Sorry. You might also consider posting at WP:RM if you think there's any chance of disagreement about the move. Mike Christie (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have troubled you - I assumed you were. I have now asked an admin to do this. Incidentally, you may like to know that the article is now at FAC. Brianboulton ( talk) 23:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries; I probably should be flattered when people think I'm an admin. And yes, I am glad you let me know it's at FAC. I also just saw your exchange with El Cobbola; I think he's right as far as his comments go but he's not addressing the real reason the images have value in my eyes, which is the "updating" of the presentation. I will post something to that effect at FAC. Mike Christie (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike, you've very kindly watchlisted Carmen Rodriguez for the NRG project. The studes have made a good deal of progress, and it probably won't belong before it can go up for WP:GAN, I think. Would you be able to take a look and give them a sense of what you think needs to be done before it's nominated? Many thanks. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 19:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Mike, thanks so much for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephen Crane. I've addressed most of your suggestions/concerns, so if you have enough time would you mind taking another look? I'll hopefully have a LOW of some kind put together in a couple days, although I have not decided whether it should be a separate page, a section, or even if it should be a list of novels/collections only or a list of individual stories/poems, as well. I'll think it over. Thanks again! María ( habla con migo) 13:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the article, Mike. It passed FAC without too much difficulty. :) If I can return the favor, let me know. María ( habla con migo) 14:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, but yes, I'd be more than happy to look over Amazing Stories. I know nothing about sci fi, so I'm looking forward to the learning experience. :) Hopefully I'll have time for a thorough read-through tomorrow. María ( habla con migo) 03:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you are a fellow Trekkie, but just in case you didn't already know about the DS9 episode Far Beyond the Stars, I wanted to mention it to you. I thought you might enjoy the premise. Awadewit ( talk) 13:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

An interesting plot. I've watched a lot of Trek over the years, including DS9, but I barely watch TV these days, so I can't really count myself as an active fan. In the early 1980s I dated a woman who was very active in Trek fandom, including writing K/S fiction and running conventions. I got to see a lot more of the world of Star Trek than I might have otherwise; I met Mark Lenard, James Doohan and Walter Koenig (who turned out to be very pleasant in person). Mike Christie (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never been to a convention or anything, but I am definitely a Star Trek geek. My ringtone is the sound of the TOS communicator. :) Awadewit ( talk) 14:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike, I notice that Amazing Stories has a co-nom. When I put Peter as a co-nom on the Rhinemaidens article I mucked up the procedure somewhat. This is not unusual - I am a total dunce in understanding such matters. Can you tell me, briefly, what the procedure is, as I am considering another co-nom and I don't want to foul up again? Many thanks, Brianboulton ( talk) 23:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I hate to tell you this, but I copied the format from your nom! As far as I can tell from the comments I saw, all you have to do is get the second nom on the same line as the first one. I think what I did was nominate as usual, then go back and edit the nominator line so it had both noms on it. It's for RickBot's benefit, I think; the bot pulls out the names and adds them to WP:WBFAN. If the bot doesn't get it right, though, it's easy enough to add the names to the right files afterwards to correct WBFAN. Mike Christie (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk about the blind leading the blind. Thanks, I'll follow what you did (based on what I did) and see where we end up! Gawd 'elp us! Brianboulton ( talk) 21:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi mike. If it's not rude to ask... were you considering Supporting or Opposing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acid dissociation constant? Thanks, and hope I'm not being too forward. Ling.Nut ^{( talk— WP:3IAR)} 17:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not rude; I don't mind at all. I'm about to go take a look at the fixes. My current feeling is that the raw material is all there, and it may be close enough to get there this pass, but that there are stylistic problems that do need to be fixed, and some clarifications. Sandy also mentioned some WP:ACCESS issues, but I'm not expert on that and don't see what she means there. Here is my query on that, in case you can answer it. On the issue of level of difficulty: I feel there are some topics that simply cannot be made accessible from a standing start, and a certain amount of prerequisite knowledge has to be assumed in the reader in technical articles. I think this one gets the balance about right, though as you saw I had some clarification requests. Why do you ask? Mike Christie (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Aha. behold the redlink above. I was right, time was running out. Ling.Nut ^{( talk— WP:3IAR)} 00:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks again for keeping an eye on my attempt to make Homosexuality in SF a FA. I've just bought a bunch of newer critical texts, including a couple of book length analyses (esp. Queer Universes), and i was wondering what would happen if the article becomes too long? It'll be some weeks before it comes to splitting things, but i'm thinking of splitting the Literature section to it's own article, and just leaving the decade overviews behind, with condensed examples. Would that help/hinder FA status in your opinion? And if i do it, could you confirm it remains GA, or should i renominate it officially? (I would do the Literature spin off as a seperate GAN).

The split may never happen, depending on whether the new sources have a lot i haven't covered, but i'm just wondering. In the long term i want to make a Featured topic out of "Sex and gender in SF", and the more seperate G/FA i can link to it, the more likely it will work. But splitting is no good if it would prevent featuring due to comprehensivness problems, and a GA sub-article that no one reads would be a waste. I'm undecided (the fact that i'm only interested in the literature isn't helping :-) ) Yobmod ( talk) 15:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the right way to go about it is to do the research, as you are doing, and see how big the article gets as a result. At the moment the article could double in size and still be OK for FA, though it would be a fairly large FA at that point. Are you suggesting splitting out an article on just written f&sf? I.e. not covering tv, film or comics, and also not covering the LGBT community's interactions with the sf community? Mike Christie (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ja, i'll do the research first, there is just more out there than i thought (the modern SF section can grow to be as large as the New wave). If the split would damage the article, then i want to add new info in as condensed a form as possible (ie, i added something about cyberpunk with only one sentence and 2 cites). If the split would help, i can be more expansive, and treat this as a hub article, summarising the Literature, comics, Manga, Film, Fandom etc. So it would change how i write it slightly: But no rush, i'll add everything first, and see if it is more than 50 Kb. Yobmod ( talk) 08:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I'm having trouble writing the section on the criticism for Carmen Rodriguez's works. I'm not sure how to go about it - should it be a general summary or a breakdown of each reviewer's opinion/thoughts? All the reviews I have are positive, but I'm not sure if I should directly quote the reviewers, and how detailed this section should be. Thanks! -- Mstmaurice ( talk) 19:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you think? -- Mstmaurice ( talk) 19:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on making Amazing Stories a Featured Article. I would have supported once my last two concerns were addressed, but Sandy closed the nomination. Would you mind taking a look at my concerns and check if they are valid? Basically, I recommended explaining "dummy issue" as a footnote (instead of using a red link), and questioned the use of "Author appeared in magazine" (e.g. "Dick appeared in Playboy") as an appropriate phrasing for the publishing of an author's article. Thank you. Jappalang ( talk) 23:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is fine. Thank you for making an informative article for Amazing Stories! Jappalang ( talk) 22:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike. Thankyou for your kind words. It isn't so much that I am finding it unrewarding - I have learned a lot that will be tremendously useful for the future work I have planned on other articles - but rather that I am finding some of the comments unconstructive. The majority have been very helpful, for instance the remarks on the layout, and where people like Ealdgyth gave specific things that I could fix (and more importantly, the reasons why); however, vague aspersions on the quality of the prose are not useful to making a better article. An error that has been spotted must be fixed, but a number of the objections seem to be matters of taste, stated without discussion of the reasoning. I was also surprised to have to explain to one commenter that archaeology and art history are not among the hard sciences and therefore many statements have to be qualified. It would be fantastic if you were willing to lend me some of your help in the future when I put things forward for GA and FA, as an experienced and, above all, fresh eye is vital. Aside from vandal patrol, I mostly write about English medieval monasteries. The three articles I am currently working on are Titchfield Abbey, Cleeve Abbey and Vale Royal Abbey. As you will see there is much to do. The former pair could be got up to GA or FA over time, the latter I think never will as the the excavation reports are very scanty and the scholarly concensus is highly speculative and based on several very unreliable primary sources. There's also no site access which means no pics. Soph ( talk) 14:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike! We at Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories would like to say thanks again for all your advice on ways to improve our article (not to mention setting our article at B-Class...thank-you!). We've now gone through your check-list and cleaned up our article. If you have the time, would you be able to check over our edits? Please keep in mind that we are still paraphrasing some quotations (namely in the style and reference section), and that we are going to continue fleshing out the article. Our GA nomination for our spanish class is due on Monday...wish us luck! Thanks again!-- Katie322 ( talk) 21:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you very much for your continual help on this article, Mike (even when real life is demanding!). That would be great if you could take a look at our article after we nominate it for GA status! I was also wondering how much more information we will need for GA status. It's kind of a difficult question to answer...would you say another paragraph in each section? or a few more sources? Any advice there would be helpful, just a goal for us to work towards. Thanks again, and happy travels!!-- Katie322 ( talk) 23:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this up your street? Ealdgyth has also been contacted about it. Geometry guy 20:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit. I feel like I could do a Rip Van Winkle and sleep for a century or two, so I'm not really in the mood for it. It's really a bit of a mess still. The last section, on the relics, I am rather struggling for references on. There's a little bit in Ryan Lavelle's book on Æthelred, so I suppose I will need to use that for want of anything better. Please do come over and leave any criticisms - there will be plenty - you have.

I only have six weeks left to get an FA submitted in 2008, otherwise I'll not have managed one at all. I better get my skates on! Hope you're well, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's the admin stuff, it keeps you from article writing! Of course, if I don't stop traveling soon, I'll never get any projects of my own done... Cheer up and skate fast! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Alas!, these days it's work, the curse of the drinking and wikipediaing classes, that's the problem. I am a wage slave now, a salaryman, and not a contractor. Used to be I could organise work to suit me and work about 40 hours a week, but not any more. A lot of the adminstuff I do in the dull bits of phone and video conferences, of which I have lots. But I can't really write stuff that way. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see if I can think of anything useful to say, but most of my books stop with Alfred, so I'm not much cop on the later kings. I could maybe do a review as if it were up for GA; would that be useful? Plus I'm pretty busy right now with another article, plus WP:NRG is starting to ramp up (if you don't know what that is, take a look -- both of you might be interested -- lots of students trying to get their articles to FA class under the guidance of a very Wikipedia-savvy professor). And Angus, I still owe you a family tree for Flann Sinna! Mike Christie (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(copied over from my talk page:) Many thanks for the Alvarez review. Much appreciated! Yes, indeed, Guyana is not usually considered part of Latin America. Indeed, I've only ever read one book on the place, for a course, which was also the only time that I have ever had to encounter it in an academic context. (These things are changing, however.) FWIW, the book was this one. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 02:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I'm hoping you'll be interested in being interviewed for the Dispatch, to be published in the Signpost within a few weeks. I started a temp page at Wikipedia:FCDW/WBFAN. Usually, the format is that interviewees drop in some text and Tony1 or Jbmurray copyedit, but I suspect that we won't need copyediting and trimming here, so I see it as more of a pick and choose, narrowing down responses only if needed. The goal is to highlight your work, and to guide, inspire and motivate other writers. If you're interested, dig in ! If not, just leave a note on the talk page of that temp page and I'll remove you. I'll tentatively aim for the November 24th Signpost. Thanks, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure; thanks for the invitation. Mike Christie (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's loosey-goosey; if you see a question I should have added, please do! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

PS, I wasn't sure how to "pigeonhole" you: suggestions? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That made me grin. How would I like to be pigeonholed? Not a question I get asked a lot. Um, obscure pre-1960 sf magazines and Anglo-Saxon topics AD 400-900? I think "Anglo-Saxon history and science fiction magazines" would be good enough. One of the things I'll probably put in the interview is that I use Wikipedia article-writing to broaden my own knowledge, so I hope to add something new to that list soon (I've been looking at History of Guyana but sources are very hard to come by). Mike Christie (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I don't seem understand the subject enough to work on that article. My edits were causing people trouble so I've removed them. Tim Vickers ( talk) 23:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to lose confidence in the FAC process. The longer the discussion stays open, the more people who don't understand anything of the topic write in to oppose because they don't understand the topic. All the issues likely to arise have been given a good airing. What's the next step? I am going away on Sat. Dec. 13 for two weeks, so what with my getting ready for the trip and having other work to do, time is running out. (I'm watching this page) Petergans ( talk) 18:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

FAC has to gain consensus that the article's prose is as clear as it can be. The problem at the moment is that several expert chemists are saying "the changes proposed are damaging", but several other people, who appear to have a scientific background, and in some cases some knowledge of chemistry, are objecting. At the moment there is little in the way of persuasion going on; only statements of position. That's unlikely to be productive of consensus.

I'd suggest you find, among those who have commented, someone you can work with. Work on a sandbox version of the lead, sentence by sentence; word by word if necessary. At the end of that process you should have gained a support vote, and simultaneously managed to avoid degrading the accuracy of the lead. Personally I'd recommend you ask Tim Vickers to work with you; he's a very good, and very good natured, editor of science articles. He has a PhD in biochemistry so can be expected to understand the technical issues you'll need to review, though no doubt you'll have to explain many details. He's also an excellent writer, with many featured articles to his credit; see oxidative phosphorylation, for example. If someone with his background feels the prose can be improved, I think you'd benefit from working with him. Conversely, I think you can understand that others, who don't understand the topic, find it hard to be convinced the prose is ideal if someone like Tim feels that there are improvements to make but cannot make them.

I mention Tim only as a possibility; there are other good science editors you could work with if you wanted to. If you do decide to ask Tim, it would be good to drop a friendly note on his talk page -- the rejection of his attempts to help was certainly not rude, but it was a little brusque, so you might take that into consideration. Mike Christie (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank's for this suggestion. I have put it to him on his talk page. Petergans ( talk) 13:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike. I appreciate your participation in Tropical Storm Erick (2007)'s FAC, and I am interesting in hearing your views on why you believe the article should be merged. Thanks, – Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you feel it is necessary, then by all means feel free to start a discussion at the article's talk page; I have no objection to that. However, I still feel that the article should be kept for a number of reasons, most of which can be found at the FAC and at WT:FAC. To sum it up:

• The article meets notability criteria.
• WP:WPTC as a WikiProject has essentially agreed to allow articles on every storm.
• A merge to 2007 Pacific hurricane season would make the Erick section over twice as long as 2007 Pacific hurricane season#Hurricane Henriette, a landfalling and deadly storm. – Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If I understand correctly over at Tropical Storm Erick (2007), you're saying that you'd prefer to oppose on the grounds that there are other storms from that season with not a lot of information on them, but you're not sure if you can. Interesting argument. I don't think people have approached the idea of allowing shorter or "vanilla" FAs with the proper enthusiasm; I think if we put our minds to it, we can come up with all sorts of ways to deflect the two main criticisms, that the articles are not good enough, and that we're "diluting the brand", letting people get away with something. Perhaps we could get agreement to allow somewhat shorter, "vanilla" articles to pass if we make the argument that they aren't the best they can be if they are best seen as sub-articles of some parent article, and the nom hasn't yet made the case that Wikipedia would be served better by combining other short sub-articles of the same parent with that article? To take the case of Julian, he would grumble, and then get to work adding enough information to the other storms in that same season to allow him to make the case that those articles all have enough to make a merge unattractive. Or, this argument could be seen in the same light as HurricaneHink's current oppose: you can't prove this article won't be merged in the future, and it's not that unlikely because of the other short articles that are sub-articles of the same parent, and we can't promote an article that might be merged. From a practical standpoint, this might be an ideal way to nudge people into adding material to all sorts of articles on roads, storms, TV episodes, etc. (Feel free to reply here. Or not :) - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 20:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither can you prove that the article will be merged in the future, unless you've got a very reliable crystal ball. The thinking here is fuzzy, and making too many assumptions about whether or not an article is "the best it can be", and what that might actually mean. There is only one set of FA criteria, and every article, no matter its length, has to meet them. It's my view that too many are trying to find loopholes to avoid addressing the real issue, which is nothing at all to do with whether julian could be bullied into working on other articles to avoid a "merge" objection. -- Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I wrote a long reply to this that got lost in a browser crash. Short version: I hope I wasn't bullying, as I didn't actually oppose, and I don't agree with Dan's analysis above. I still don't know if FA is for every article or only for some. More tomorrow, if I have time and there is anything more to say. Mike Christie (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's a shame. Well, I'm running out of time before I move on to issues of nurturing copyeditor community, and I don't see sufficient progress on the FAC page with these issues, so I'll give it a rest. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 04:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't that there are other storms with little information on them. That argument could run either way: split every storm out of the season article to its own article, and submit it to FA. No specific reason why not in the FA criteria. I think that although WIAFA doesn't say anything about it, I am not happy supporting an article that I don't think is right by other Wikipedia standards. So if an article should be merged, I don't want to support, but don't see a WIAFA reason to oppose. That's where I stand on Erick. My merge reasons have nothing to do with WIAFA at all; they're just merge reasons. Is that clearer? Mike Christie (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it in terms of a merge question is interesting and might be a way forward, as I mention above. But my bottom line is that, after wading through more of these discussions, I've decided I agree with G-Guy (if I understand him correctly) that we're spinning our wheels here. I notice that people writing FACs spend more time than they should prepping their articles because it's not clear what's needed to pass. My instinct in this situation is to ask people what they need, negotiate, and try to come up with criteria that are easier to follow. But we don't have a critical mass of people interested in that approach. My time would be better spent building a community of copyeditors. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 14:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

To keep everything in one place, here's what I said at FAC:

I've struck my support. I have followed the arguments on various pages and read some previous arguments concerning shorter FAs. I'm left feeling disappointed that we're not making anything that feels to me like progress. The bottom line is that, when I read an article like Tropical Storm Erick (2007), my sense is that it will usually wind up not getting promoted at FAC for one reason or another. When the community is ready to make a good-faith effort to carefully push the boundary, to figure out exactly what kind of shorter and "drier" (probably better than "boring", which is laden with value judgment) articles can become Featured, without weakening what it means to be Featured, I'll be happy to read the arguments and toss in my vote. Until then, I'm not willing to weigh in one way or the other; harm could be done either way if I take a shot in the dark. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 14:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ohai Mike Christie, I see that you are listed towards the top of this page, which means you have experience with article writing and expanding articles -- getting them featured. I'd like you to check out the WikiCup, beginning in January for the fourth cup. aye matthew ✡ 23:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have copyedited the first half of the article - you had better check that you are happy with what I've done. I will do my best to finish the copyedit on Monday as I am then away for several days, and I'd like to leave a comment at FAC before I go. Brianboulton ( talk) 00:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to help address the issue which dragged out the FAC. That's something I've seen few editors do at FAC, especially for a video game article. Your help and support was and still is appreciated. Thanks again. ( Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC))

You're welcome. I find it hard to oppose without trying to be clear about what I think needs to be done -- I know very well how hard that is to deal with when I get comments like that in my own FACs. It was also interesting to read one of these video game articles that are often mentioned in conversations about Wikipedia's systemic bias, and find that it was well-researched, well-written, informative and interesting. Mike Christie (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Christmas and happy new year to my Anglo-Texan friend. Great to see you around again. qp10qp ( talk) 14:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mike. I noticed your comment on Angus McLellan's talk page in which you requested an edition/translation of a Life of Guthlac for use in the article on Coenred of Mercia (which must have cost you a lot of work. Thumbs up!). Seeing as you were kinda forced to use a translation of the Old English Life (dating from a later period) rather than one of Felix's Latin Life (on which that one draws), I've corrected the citation in the Coenred article. If you need any further material from Felix's Life - whatever article it is you're working on - just let me know. Cavila ( talk) 16:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Mike, I wonder if at some time you could look at New South Greenland on peer review? This is a change from my usual fare of expedition articles, but it might make a pleasing aperetif. I'd welcome any comments you have. Brianboulton ( talk) 19:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent and thorough review, which I have transferred to the Peer Review page, where I have responded. The article has benefitted greatly from your suggestions. I would be most grateful if you could visit that page to check whether my responses have dealt adequately with the points you identified. Brianboulton ( talk) 01:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Done; the changes look good. I had one or two very minor follow up points. Mike Christie (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The June 1929 issue of Science Wonder Stories appeared on newsstands on 5 May 1929 - As I was pondering whether or not to remove "on newsstands" from this sentence in Science Wonder Stories, it occurred to me that it might be interesting to have a picture of SF magazines on sale in these articles. One reason I chose to retain "on newsstands" is that it conveys to the reader how the magazines were sold, but I know that many of my students, for example, don't know what a newsstand is. :) Awadewit ( talk) 12:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean something like the fifth picture on this page? I think that would be great. I will see if I can find a free image or one for which I can justify fair use; a free image seems unlikely but you never know. I don't recall such a picture in any of my reference books, but I'll see. Mike Christie (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I mean! I think those hoity-toity scholars assume people know what a newsstand is. Sheesh! We should come down out of our ivory towers, eh? Awadewit ( talk) 12:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought this Wiki article, " Man Will Conquer Space Soon!", should be brought to your attention. Manhattan Samurai ( talk) 17:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

	<font=3> Happy New Year 2009, and may all your articles get promoted! Brianboulton ( talk) 19:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I see you put a lot of work into Beyond Fantasy Fiction and today it's the featured article of the day. Congratulations and good work Mike. -- Marc Kupper| talk 20:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If you could weigh in on Petergans recent behavior with the article that would be great. If you look at the history and the talk page, you should be able to get a good idea of what has gone on.-- Jorfer ( talk) 18:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that general discussion is not what I meant. I wanted you to comment specifically on Petergan's removal of wording I included to broaden access, on what seems to me to be his use of an anonymous IP as a hostile sockpuppet, and on his strikethrough edit. I didn't want the appearance of slanting the discussion by including my point of view in the above post, but it is apparently needed to be clear.-- Jorfer ( talk) 23:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought you'd like to know that I've nominated this at FAC. Thanks mainly to your peer review comments the article is much stronger than it was, for which I am most grateful. Brianboulton ( talk) 21:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Mike, I have posted the message below on the talk pages of all previous opposers. Hopefully this will bring the FAC nearer to promotion. In effect I'm throwing down the gauntlet to the opposers by showing them what the lead will look like when they have their way. I'm not too happy about it, but, for me, it's the body of the article that really matters, not the lead. What led me to do this? In the first place Tim Vickers did not reply; presumably he's ill or away. Then, thinking about it, I could not see that the line-by-line process would ever succeed. It had to be written with different readers in mind for the lead and the body. The only thing that concerns me about the new lead is its length, and how much would be used on the main page. If you think that it needs some copy editing, then please go ahead and do it. Your support has been very welcome, especially in the face of such sustained hostility from the opposers.

Itub ( talk) has proposed an alternative, shorter version of the lead at User:Itub/ADC lead. Petergans ( talk) 11:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

_________________________________________

I have now re-written the lead for acid dissociation constant. The essential content of the lead is the same as before. The effect of this change will be that when chemists will read the explanatory material they will say to themselves, yes, I know that, but non-chemists will hopefully get the gist of what the article is about

I invite you to read it and then record your “vote”, e.g. “now support” or “still oppose”, at wp:Featured_article_candidates/Acid_dissociation_constant. I have assembled a list of names under Re-written lead, so that the responses will be collected together in one place.

Some minor disagreements will inevitably remain. These should not be a reason for opposition. Rather, put constructive ideas on the article’s talk page, so that the article can be further improved by the normal editing process. Petergans ( talk) 09:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter, I'll take a look when I can, and if I can help by copyediting I will. Tim may have been ill or away, or he may have been just uninterested or short of time -- he is much in demand as you can see from his talk page. I do think that some of the opposition is not "hostile": some is a genuine attempt to improve the article, from other editors of varying degrees of scientific education. A technique I've sometimes used in my own FACs, when I disagree with an edit, is not to say "No" directly, but instead say: "If I make this change, it would cause this problem; how do you suggest we address that?" Sometimes, if I'm lucky, that enlists the editor as an ally rather than setting up an oppositional relationship. Anyway, whatever the outcome I'd be glad to continue working with you on the article with whatever spare time I have. I can also try to find other scientifically knowledgeable copyeditors if you want me to. I must tell you, though, that I think it is extremely unlikely to pass this FAC, just because too many people would have to change their minds in a short time. I think we're going to have to have another try after this one. That's OK, though; the article is immeasurably better than when you found it, so the encyclopedia is benefiting. Mike Christie (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Mike, Thank you for all your help. I'm trly sorry that you used up so much of your time to no avail. I see no possibility at the present time of re-submitting as FAC. This has been the most awful experience of submitting for publication of my whole life. I am used to submitting papers to peer-reviewed journals and accept referees' comments 99% of the time. Here, my peers have little or no knowledge of the subject matter. The suggested modifications to wording made by some reviewers seemed, as sentences in English, to be improvements in clarity. In actual fact this was an illusion because the chemistry made less sense. It was clear to me that consensus could never be reached as long as reviewers persisted in the belief that clarity could be improved by tinkering with the wording. That was why I was so angry to see the word unprofessional as it implied to me that I had not taken sufficient care to express the ideas as clearly as possible. In general it has been most unpalatable to have reviewers sounding off about how they don't understand the subject matter and then making suggestions as to how to improve it. Sad to say, this includes Geometry Guy. The only reviewer who made useful comments was Proteins. I am happy to go along with what he suggests, but I can't do it for him.

In summary, the consensus mechanism has clearly failed in this instance. Key to this failure was the fact that the opinions of the professionally qualified chemists Itub and Physchim62 counted for nothing. These guys were effectively independent reviewers. It appears that no consensus is possible between the professionals and those Wikipedians who, despite have no idea of the technical complexity of the subject matter, are prepared to pass judgement the way it is presented. For this reason I see no point in my spending any more time on this article. Petergans ( talk) 10:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• I hope you won't mind too much if I make another request. This time it's not about ADC, but a new article that I have drafted. I am wondering if it would be worthwhile submitting it to Did You Know. As I don't know the ins and outs of that process may I ask you to give it a brief look and then let me know your opinion. Don't even think of copy editing it; I'll go through it again tomorrow. It's not important that it gets into DYK as I'm going to put it up anyway as Stability constants of complexes but if you think it would get in, that would be the best response I can think of to the debacle of ADC. Petergans ( talk) 18:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'd be glad to take a look. Things are a bit frenzied at the moment so it might be a day or two, but I'm hoping to have a little time tomorrow night or the next night. If you don't see any response from me by the end of the weekend please ping me again. Mike Christie (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

  The article made no. 1 in the DYK list today. I owe it to you for suggesting the hook, which would never have occurred to me. Very many thanks and a belated Happy New Year. Petergans ( talk) 10:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much this matters to you now, but back in '07 you commented on the name of this article from Controversies about the word niggardly (previous discussion here and two sections down as well). Someone just unilaterally changed the name, and I'm objecting, for now, at that person's talk page. [1] It's not a bigggie, but if you have an opinion and think it's worth it, please chime in at Talk:Controversies concerning the word "niggardly"#Recent name change and maybe we can settle it easily. I expect it'll be amicable. Thanks. -- Noroton ( talk) 18:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Mike, I see you put in a request to Kmusser on the map: I'm also having a hard time reading File:Aethelred family tree.gif. (Do you know if Tony is satisfied yet?) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

GIFs are only appropriate for animations—see WP:IUP#FORMAT. This should really, really be an SVG (such as File:William Austen family tree two generations.svg) or at least PNG. GIFs simply do not render properly unless set to their native size. I'll gladly create an SVG (with an accompanying PNG) if you like. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 00:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know I haven't forgotten. I'm working on it and will probably upload later tonight! Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 20:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

are there two different spellings of receive? I live in US, so I'm not sure if recieve is acceptable in UK? We have some "I before E, except after C" thing here, but I don't know if that is true overseas. Ched ( talk) 19:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the US and UK spellings are the same for that. One good way to check any given spelling is just to go to www.m-w.com; they say if a spelling is chiefly British. If they don't have it, it's most likely an error. Mike Christie (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, a whole new area for me to consider, it may take a couple days to get up to speed on this issue. Really appreciate you providing info. And Really, appreciate the friendly tone. Not all my efforts have been met with such civil discourse, and I want to note that I do appreciate the editors who take the time to be nice and explain. You're one of the "Good Guys" ;) .. Ched ( talk) 20:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for the compliment. Stop by any time if you have any questions; I've been around here for a bit and though there are some areas I'm not familiar with I can probably point you to someone who can help for most things. See you around! Mike Christie (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, while we're kinda in a holding pattern on Bede, take a look at Nigel and tell me if I'm missing anything that jumps at you? I've got the Liber Eliensis at home to add a bit in on Nigel's relationship with his chapter, and it'll need a copyedit once I get done with that, but I wanna make sure I'm not missing anything vital and that I've explained the background well. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wilco. And I forgot to do the tree this weekend; sorry about that -- remind me if you don't see it by Tuesday. Shouldn't take too long; just need to remember to do it. Mike Christie (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Wilfrid is staring me in the eye. Stupid bishop. Anyway, could I beg a map off of you perhaps? Maybe one that showed his various perambulations or his various foundations? I've stolen two of your maps already, but Wilfrid's going to be a pain (of course we knew he would be!) and I'm going to need illustrations. Also, if I got you a hand drawn family tree, could you make me up a pretty file of it? Specifically, I'm thinking of something to show the family relationships of Nigel (Bishop of Ely). I know that family is beyond your time frame, so I'd have provide a draft for you. You'll also note that I went through and moved all the ABCs and ABYs around to the names used in the Handbook of British Chronology, so the lists of them should be mostly accurate as far as names. As I get time, I plan to move around all the bishops, so they aren't at weird names like "Birthelmus" and stuff, but something close to what scholarship recognizes. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help on both, but I can't promise any particular timeline. I am heading back to New York on Sunday, after three weeks in Texas, which probably means I can guarantee a little time in the evenings every night. I'll be trying to get some of the Mercian kings up to snuff but should be able to make progress. Which do you want first, Wilfrid or Nigel? For Nigel, take a look at Talk:Flann Sinna where Angus provided a list of relationships and I turned those into a diagram. That would work for me this time too, if it's easier than drawing a draft. (I hope Nigel's tree isn't as bizarre as Flanna Sinna's.) For Wilfrid, I have the Life, and probably have most of the relevant reference works, but they're currently all in Texas. I plan to start moving them all up to NY as I will be spending most of my time in NY from now on, but if you can let me know which references cover his travels best then I'll make sure I take those this trip or next.

By the way, did you see Kablammo's comment at the Coenred FAC? He's quite right that the images are illegible; I've always been torn about this. Do you think thumbnails are the best way to go? It avoids the argument since nobody can expect them to be legible at 100px.

On the names, yes, I was glad to see a couple of those moves pop up on my watchlist. Do you think it would be worth putting together a naming policy of some kind for Anglo-Saxons? I've done a few moves over the last year or two, mostly justifying it by reference to majority usage in current secondary sources. It might be codifiable, if it's worth doing so -- e.g. the oethel tends to get transcribed both as "oe" and "e" (e.g. Coenred vs. Cenred) but I think we should be consistent; similarly with aesc, which is usually but not always retained as the ligature "æ" (unlike oethel). Mike Christie (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just saw this, missed it on my watchlist. I'll get you what is known about Roger of Salisbury's family, and thus, what's known about Nigel's, tonight. Probably easier for me to list what's known and let you design the chart. Nigel'll be first at FAC, he's already a GA and he's had a PR, so it's just ce'ing at this point, I've got every scrap of info I can find in there. Wilfrid's going to be a pain in the butt, and I've got the Vita on order as well as some other things. Blech. He's probably just going to skip GA and go right to FAC, once I'm done with him. Reply to the rest later... (Must get back to World of Warcraft!) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what Roger's (and by extension Nigel's) family looks like:

• Roger of Salisbury - bishop of Salisbury, d. 1139. He was married (maybe, maybe not) to Matilda of Ramsbury, who was the mother of his son Roger le Poer.
• Roger of Salisbury had a brother named Humprhey, who may or may not be the father of either/both Alexander of Lincoln and Nigel (Bishop of Ely).
• Alexander was definitely the elder Roger's nephew, and was a nephew through a brother of Roger's. It's unclear if Roger had only one brother or more than one.
• Alexander's mother was definitely named Ada.
• Adelelm (Lord High Treasurer) was either Roger's son or his nephew. ODNB says nephew, Kealey, the most modern biographer of the elder Roger says probably son.
• Alexander and Nigel were probably brothers, although there is no direct contemporary references to them as such. They studied together at Laon, which leads credence to them being brothers.
• Alexander had a (another?) surely attested brother, David, who was archdeacon of Buckingham in the diocese of Lincoln.
• Alexander had a nephew named William, who became archdeacon of Northampton. And a niece, whose son was Robert de Alvers.
• Nigel had a son, Richard FitzNeal, later bishop of London. Nigel had another son, usually called William the Englishman, who is pretty unknown.
• Another relative, William of Ely fits in here somewhere, but how exactly is unclear.

Sourcing for this is mainly the ODNB's various articles on the subjects and Kealey Roger of Salisbury, which has a full reference in the article on Nigel.

As far as image sizes go, I kinda agree with Kablammo, but it's not enough for me to fight with the image size police about. Best reference for Wilfrid's travels is probably his ODNB article, since what I"m reading about him in the secondary sources seems to think that both Bede AND Eddius "fudged" a bit with things in their treatment of Wilfrid. As far at the ligatures, I'm good with whatever you and Angus and Deacon come up with, and will follow that. I just want to get Wiki to recognize that it's Richard fitzNeal, not Richard FitzNeal or, worse, Fitz Neal. (mutters).

Thanks muchly on the family tree. This is one of the few instances with bishops where things get complicated enough that a diagram would be helpful! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much on the tree, but any chance we can get the bottom white space chopped off? Right now it's adding a bunch of extra white space on the bottom. i'd do it myself, but photoshop doesn't seem to like .svg. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

White space has been cut; I left a little in for borders. Do you also want dates of birth and death, where known? Mike Christie (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's really up to you. I mainly wanted it so people could have an graphical idea of all the various relationships. None of them really duplicate names, so dates aren't needed to keep people with the same name separate. I'm amazingly happy with what it is, right now! Thanks so much! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Keats-Rohan, K. S. B. (1999). Domesday Descendants: A Prosopography of Persons Occurring in English Documents, 1066-1166: Pipe Rolls to Cartae Baronum. Ipswich, UK: Boydell Press. ISBN  0-85115-863-3.

I may be in love... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That made me laugh out loud. That sounds like my kind of toy. I keep thinking about working backwards to Roman Britain, but you keep making me want to work forwards to the Normans. Mike Christie (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

All depends on how many sources you wanna play with. Going back towards the Romans you'll have less and less to work with. If you go forward to the Normans, you do get more stuff to play with. (The other matching volume is coming tomorrow...) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I really shouldn't have looked at it... I really shouldn't have. Ugh. Using NNDB as a source? I can see we've got our work cut out for us.... Ealdgyth - Talk 04:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be gone Friday through Sunday night/Monday night, so nothing much will get done until I get back home from this short trip. Hopefully, this will allow my books to arrive. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, did you ever get around to reading Walter Goffart's article in the Narrators of Barbarian History? Figured I'd ask since you're planning on Bede AND' his alleged ideological enemy Wilfrid. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 03:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I read it a whle back, but now I have to FIND it again, as I stupidly packed it up in the process of moving... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As you no doubt noted from my verbose prose, I found and got a chunk of Goffart into the article. Most of Goffart's stuff will have to wait on the articles on the individual works, he's pretty detailed. Deacon dropped a new toy onto the Wilfrid article today, unfortunately, it's only available for pre-order here in the states. Bummer. I got Brown's Bede the Venable today, it will NOT be packed, so I should be able to work on it in bits and pieces. (I also FINALLY got St Wilfrid at Hexham... more Wilfrid-fun!) Will try to stay sane in the great move. I hate moving books and having them in boxes, I've already wanted about 12 that are beyond recovery until after we get moved... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We are finally (mostly) moved in. At least enough to actually unload books, which is a start. Now to scrounge bookshelves... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I spent this weekend packing books, as it happens; we're moving this summer and have to get the house decluttered for show. I am in Florida at the moment and won't get back to NY till Wednesday, so you may not see much from me till then. With luck some more of the books I've ordered will have arrived by then. I haven't had time to go through the ODNB article for more on HE, so that's still pending; or you can go on to the next section and I'll do that if you prefer. Mike Christie (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It all depends on how lazy I feel tomorrow. As tired as I am from a whole week of movers and sorting and movers and sorting and cleaning and stuff, I'm seriously thinking it's a total day off tomorrow, so I can play World of Warcraft for a while! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Chronicon Abbatiae de Evesham Ealdgyth - Talk 03:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Very nice. Thanks for doing that; it needed doing. I've had to cite it a couple of times, and found it remarkably hard to find anything out about it. I just looked on addall.com, by the way, and found a copy of the Rolls series edition for $69 -- a steal, I would think, if you're interested. I am tempted myself but have recently splurged on Bede so I think I will hold back. Mike Christie (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll wait. Abbots are a ways down on my list, the only one I'm interested in at this moment is Aethelwig, who will be written tomorrow. Somewhere, I have Darlington's article on him... somewhere... Ealdgyth - Talk 04:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• You can't have it! It's mine! Mine, I say! Ling.Nut ^{( talk— WP:3IAR)} 06:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  You're right! This time I did say "argued for" rather than claiming credit, so I think I'm in the clear. Mike Christie (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain why you rollbacked a perfectly legitimate edit here? ^Leave Sleaves 02:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I wondered it might have been unintentional, so I wanted to check with you. ^Leave Sleaves 04:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm wanting to start an article on the Gregorian mission, and have worked a bit on the text from Augustine of Canterbury in a sandbox User:Ealdgyth/Gregorian mission, and now I'm ready to go ahead and move it over... but how do I do that without breaking the GFDL and screwing up the histories? I don't normally write in sandboxes, as you can tell. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've trawled through a couple of pages that have marginally relevant information on them, such as Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves, Wikipedia:MOVE#Fixing cut and paste moves and WP:GFDL. As I understand it (and this isn't an area I've focused a lot on) the goal is to have attribution of the original visible in the history. In the case you're talking about, I think it would be sufficient to paste your new version in as the page creation, and use an edit summary that gives the version of the Augustine of Canterbury page that you derived it from. E.g. your edit summary might be:

created; modification of Augustine of Canterbury version 264305096

Unfortunately you can't do straight non-wiki links in the edit summary, otherwise you could include a hard link to the history version. Failing that I think the oldid is good enough. Mike Christie (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Took your advice, we'll see what happens (grins). I figured that article would be a good complement to Bede, which I'm still plugging away at. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently mulling over what my suggestion would imply: you are correct (of course ;) there are many difficulties, but none that seem immediately insurmountable. I will admit from the start that there will still need to some sort of central structure, if only for legal reasons! What are your other objections? Physchim62 (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you are making two assertions: that FAC does more harm than good, and that if articles are to be selected for the main page, WikiProjects should do the selection. Let's start with the second point; there are two problems I see with it. First, WikiProjects vary enormously in quality. The military history WikiProject has a very strong reputation, and when they awarded A-class status it meant a lot. (I believe it still does, though I did hear a rumour that the quality dipped a little while ago.) Not every project is going to be that good; what does one do to ensure a WikiProject is producing quality? The second problem is that good copyediting standards and a house style are not skills one can expect of every WikiProject. House style has real value to a reader in ensuring consistency and clean presentation. How could that be addressed under your proposal? Mike Christie (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The concrete proposal is taking form at User:Physchim62/Sandbox, after some informal discussions. I've promised to have it ready for this weekend but you are welcome to stop by in the meantime and have a look at the unfinished version. Physchim62 (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've posted some comments at the talk page. Mike Christie (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've replied to all your comments now. If you want to get the most "serious" issues first, you better-off (IMHO) starting from the bottom than the top: purely a factor of how you listed your comments and how far I think my proposal answers them (or, to put it another way, what I admit still needs hashing out). Thanks for your interest; while awaiting your reply, I shall get back to trying to improve the proposal! Physchim62 (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've brought up the current activity at ANI. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I posted there. I don't watch those kinds of pages so I appreciate the nudge -- I wouldn't have seen it otherwise. Mike Christie (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for writing that. I just found it while chasing down a particular reference and I thought it was a well composed and engaging article. Protonk ( talk) 22:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Symposium: FAC and the sciences
• See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#FAC_symposium. I'm afraid to make a subpage of FAC or WT:FAC; afraid a bot will mistake it for a nom... Ling.Nut ^{( talk— WP:3IAR)} 12:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  Go right ahead. I'm too busy to respond more than that right now; more later, perhaps. Mike Christie (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I created a page elsewhere: Wikipedia:WikiProject Featured articles/Science FAC symposium. Thanks and g'night! Ling.Nut ^{( talk— WP:3IAR)} 13:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

...was inspiring! Count me in if you ever plan to start a "Wikipedian protestor" movement. :) I find myself examining anything I read much more critically nowadays, partly due to Wikipedia. "spreading that attitude among those interested enough in information to think critically about it is a step towards a more educated population—more capable of making sensible voting decisions; more capable of filtering garbage from the media channels and identifying quality information, and more capable of finding out answers for themselves." Hear, hear! Budding Journalist 03:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It was fun to write, and I'm glad it was worth reading. Thanks for letting me know you liked it. Mike Christie (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Please accept this invitation to join the Tropical cyclones WikiProject (WPTC), a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with tropical cyclones. WPTC hosts some of Wikipedia's highest-viewed articles, and needs your help for the upcoming cyclone season. Simply click here to accept!

– Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

wanna !vote on WT:WIAFA? Ling.Nut.Public ( talk) 09:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No; per my comment earlier on that page I won't support as I don't believe any change is necessary, but I won't oppose a consensus as I don't think the changes would be harmful. Mike Christie (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if you have the April 2005 issue of Locus. I'm working on the Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell article and could use the Clarke interview. Awadewit ( talk) 19:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry -- I do subscribe but I don't keep old issues, so I no longer have this. Mike Christie (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It almost makes sense! (At least to me... ) I'll get these dang bishops done one day... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Very nice. You have a couple of tidbits there I don't have in Offa but should add. What do you think of using File:Offa_dioceses.gif? My source is one of Hunter Blair's books; I can dig it out if you like. Mike Christie (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and throw the source on the map. I'll throw the map up. I am using some of your maps on Wilfrid and Ruhrfish is saying they are too small, even when he clicks on them... any chance you have bigger versions lurking somewhere? Ealdgyth - Talk 03:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

They kindly let me check it out (along with Brooks' Bede Barrow lecture) so I should be able to get you a full scan of it shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Woohoo! Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm scanning this in parts. Drop me an email so I can start sending you the parts? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the eight(!!!) parts are sent to you. I also scanned in the paper copies I got of Grandsen's "Bede's Reputation as an Historian in Medieval England", Olsen's "Bede as Historian", Bracken's "Virgil the Grammarian and Bede", King's "An unreported early use of Bede's De natura rerum", Gneuss and Lapidge's "Earliest manuscript of Bede's metrical Vita S. Cudbercti", and Bonner's "Bede and medieval civilization". I also updated the bede materials list with some new pdf files I got. Let me know if you want any. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I got home and I'm downloading away; wow, they're big all right. I don't think I'll need any of the other material just yet; the Gneuss and Lapidge sounds like it might be interesting at some point. I think I'm finding that when I take on a big topic I retreat to the leaf nodes on the article tree and build from there; I think that enables me to learn as I build the articles. So unless I lose momentum I'm going to try to do the mss, then the printed works (that should be much quicker, as fewer are notable) and then the list of works. Then I should be able to get back to the main article. Thanks so much for the scans; they're going to be invaluable -- I've wanted to read this for a while. Mike Christie (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Pat LoBrutto, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Unreferenced BLP reads like an advertisement.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{ dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. لenna vecia 21:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I can write up the motivating examples and definitions for magmas, semigroups, and monoids to make them all look more like stuff we have for groups. I can't see why standardizing it could hurt. I mean, before I changed anything, the definition of magama didn't explain anything and all of the examples of semigroups confused and muddled up the definition. I mean, there is something to be said for standardization, would you agree? Negi(afk) ( talk) 13:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That's some great work you're doing at List of works by Bede! As you may or may not know, Higham's (Re-)reading Bede has a useful list of works by and attributed to Bede, which I don't think is any more complete than yours, but it includes the latest editions and translations. Many of these are CCSL publications, but there's also less obvious material. Regards, Cavila ( talk) 06:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC).

Hi, I've sent you an email about the Bede books I had a look at in the library today. Dr pda ( talk) 11:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I got it. Thank you very much indeed! Mike Christie (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm slowly working my way through Higham's Convert Kings. Would you like a copy of the parts you might be most interested in? He discusses Aethelbert at great length, and Edwin too. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure -- thank you very much! Mike Christie (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 08:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

File:WulfhereGenealogy.svg needs the source for the information? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure; I'm in Texas till tomorrow but should be able to add the info Tuesday or Wednesday. Mike Christie (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mistake? – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 02:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Thanks for letting me know. I've apologized to Ealdgyth on her talk page. Mike Christie (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no problem, was just making sure. Cheers. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 00:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

File:English kingdoms 600.gif. Awa wants it in SVG... help! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia suggested that you would be an excellent choice to review an article before it is submitted for FAC. The article is Jack Coggins. The article made GA a while ago, but failed its first FAC. A few months back I asked Sandy for her advice as to what more was needed (see Talk:Jack Coggins#Notes from SandyGeorgia) and after making those, and some other, changes, I'd appreciate your review and and advice before I put it up for FA again. Thank you very much, and emjoy your summer travels! -- Avi ( talk) 07:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand; best of luck on the moving process! -- Avi ( talk) 13:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

is to be used in cases of clear-cut vandalism only. This was an inappropriate usage. Please refrain from doing that. Thanks, Enigma ^msg 13:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've answered the easier of questions, but it would be great if you could adjust the article accordingly. Cheers, - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 08:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I will have a crack when I get time; perhaps tomorrow if I'm lucky. By the way, I added signatures to your comments at the FAC, to make it easier to see who was speaking; please revert if you'd rather I didn't mess with your text. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I love the map you created and am glad to see it in lots of pages, but I think it could use some small adjustments. The trouble is that some of the more important kingdoms are in the smallest print. In Munster the Corcu Loígde were in control of the province only a century and a half before, but they look unimportant next to the Eóganacht Raithlind. Similary, the Uí Fidgenti were considered peers of the Eóganachta and they and their offshoots are frequently mentioned in the Annals, [2] yet they look unimportant near the Dál gCais (Déisi), who were very unimportant at this time. In Mide the Southern Uí Néill could defintely look a little more prominent too, plus the name of the province is missing. I don't have Duffy myself but it seems he could have done better. Not your fault. DinDraithou ( talk) 20:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Forgot the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ireland_early_peoples_and_politics.gif DinDraithou ( talk) 21:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments on the map! I did it for Angus McLellan, who knows a lot more about that topic than I do. I believe he sent me a scan of the Duffy page to work from. If you like, I can send you the original image -- I believe I did it in Powerpoint. It really should be redone as an svg anyway, as it resizes so badly. I probably can't work on it for a while but if you can list everything that should be done to it I will have a go some time -- probably over this coming winter. Mike Christie (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon hoard found Ealdgyth - Talk 22:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I heard it on NPR, in amongst all that tedious stuff about politics and the G20 and so on -- it made my ears perk up, I can tell you. The pictures are amazing. Should be some good stuff for future articles! Mike Christie (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I've added a couple of alternative links. Please check them out. Thanks Jack1956 ( talk) 10:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Urse passed FAC today, and now I'm casting about for a new option. Hemming's just passed GA, but since I'm by no means a manuscript nor intellectual history historian, are there things you think should be there that aren't? I've dropped a note to Deacon and Cavila, and plan to hit up Adam as well. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I am gradually emerging from house-fixing fugue; it's been four plus months since we moved in, and I may have some spare time coming up. I will certainly take a look and see if I can think of anything. At a quick glance, I wonder if there is more about the custody of the manuscript; it is probably worth mentioning explicitly that the Cotton collection went to the BL with no intervening owner, and if anything is known about how Cotton acquired it that would be good to add too. Mike Christie (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, if you have time, you you look at my latest FLC, Gaylactic spectrum awards, and add comment/supports/oppose? The usual FL reviewers are being very slow about reviewing, and all the relevant wikiprojects are ignoring it. It has one day until it becomes "urgent", and further extentions need it to be being imporved, but i have no comments to work on. I think the criteria are pretty simple for those with GA/FA experience, and you can see that it is essentially the same as previous FLs i made. Any contribution is appreciated! (Damn, i'm starting to sound needy with these requests....)

Adding a comment so MiszaBot will archive this. Mike Christie (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I read Thrilling Wonder from its inception. You can verify my description of its logo by examining copies of the magazine. The Noel Loomis story which appeared in the magazine describes a group of mutants who, with a bloodthirsty mob of normals pounding at their door, have no choice but to enter the untried machine built by one of their number for the latter claims it will transport them to the new world. The new world has skies filled with flying creatures similar in appearance to the narrator of the story (with whom he can mate, hopefully). They are peace loving so all the narrator's mutant friends are welcome also. Alas, their lives are dominated by the Glass Mountain, a non-human intelligence. Escape via the machine is impossible for its creator has disappeared--into the Glass Mountain!

Strange, I can remember all this detail, but am constantly reborrowing library books I checked out only a few months earlier.

Check out my own writings under a variety of psedonyms at http://zanybooks.com

Adding a comment so MiszaBot will archive this. Mike Christie (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)