User talk:Mike Christie: Difference between revisions
→Do you have a list of everyone who nominated and/or reviewed an article in the last year?: WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient notification template |
→Editor of the Week: Congrats! |
||
Line 2,072: | Line 2,072: | ||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; color:#606570" |'''Editor of the Week''' |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; color:#606570" |'''Editor of the Week''' |
||
|- |
|- |
||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid lightgray" |Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]] in recognition of |
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid lightgray" |Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]] in recognition of your great contributions! <span style="color:#a0a2a5">(courtesy of the [[WP:WER|<span style="color:#80c0ff">Wikipedia Editor Retention Project</span>]])</span> |
||
|} |
|} |
||
[[User: |
[[User:AirshipJungleman29]] submitted the following nomination for [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]]: |
||
:I nominate Mike Christie to be EOTW — seriously!! 84 Featured Articles on science fiction magazines, prehistoric and Anglo-Saxon history, and literally everything in between...plus all the reviews he does at FAC; and that's not even counting the fabulous work he's done with ChristieBot at the Good Article process, totally revamping the whole thing, all while doing 380 (!!!) reviews at GAN? I can't believe he's been editing since 2006, with 60000 edits, and he hasn't received this yet—in my opinion, long, long overdue. Plus 663 reviews at FAC [!], 174 of them in 2022. And keeping the FAC statistics up to date and the associated tools working. I suspect that he has secretly cloned himself in order to deal with the backlog. How on earth have we let this literal angel go without an EOTW award for seventeen years. This nomination was seconded by [[User:Gog the Mild]], [[Userlead:Unlimited]] and [[User:CT55555]]. |
|||
:{{{nominationtext}}} |
|||
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: |
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: |
||
<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}</syntaxhighlight> |
<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}</syntaxhighlight> |
Revision as of 12:38, 29 July 2023
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 |
GA nom question
Hello, Mike. I just had a question about a recent article that became a GA. Originally I co-nominated it because it ended up being two of us who cleaned it up to prep for the GAN. I was happy to just help address a couple things in the review if needed. However, the original reviewer apparently abandoned it almost immediately a month ago, and was pinged multiple times by me and the reviewer. I eventually just told the reviewer I'd take over and address the issues that were brought up.
Long story short, is it possible for me to get credit for the nomination even though I wasn't the original nominator since after giving the original nominator a month, I ended up doing 99% of the work? -- ZooBlazertalk 07:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- At the moment there's no way to give credit to conominators or co-reviewers. In this case I think it would make more sense to make you the reviewer, rather than the nominator, since I don't think we should ever have a case where the same person is both, though I can see either would make sense. ChristieBot gives reviewer credit to whoever creates the review page, and (I think) SDZeroBot gives nominator credit to whoever is in the GA nomination template at the time it's created. It would be possible for me to create an override list, which would convert reviewer A to reviewer B for a given GA nomination, but I'm reluctant to do that for a couple of reasons.
- What would definitely fix it would be to have "|nominator1=" and "|nominator2=" etc. parameters in the {{GA}} template, and similarly "|reviewer=". Then the definition of nominator, conominator, and reviewer could depend on the values of those parameters. That would also require changes to {{articlehistory}}. I've suggested a nominator parameter at both templates' talk pages in the past and did not get agreement. There are arguments against such a change -- for one thing, at the moment when a nominator or reviewer is identified, there's no need for the bots to look again, since it can't change. Any such change would require periodically rescanning every relevant article, which would be slow and expensive, computationally. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Bummer. Oh well. I guess maybe to get credit for the article now, I'll have to focus on FA or something.
- Sorry if I worded things weird, but I wasn't the reviewer. I only did what a nominator would do in terms of cleaning up the article based on the GAR. -- ZooBlazertalk 21:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- I see; yes, I didn't quite get that. I think most people who do a lot of content end up with work in a few articles that they don't get a nominator's credit for; I wouldn't worry about that -- it's still your work, as anyone who looks at the history will see. And if it prompts you to take the article to FAC, that's a good outcome! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
DYK for Killing of Mitch Henriquez
On 2 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Killing of Mitch Henriquez, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the killing of Mitch Henriquez led to four days of rioting in The Hague, prompting the police to announce a ban on public assemblies of more than three people? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of Mitch Henriquez. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Killing of Mitch Henriquez), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 16,406 views (683.6 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of July 2023 – nice work! |
GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi Mike. Gog would like to put this one up at TFA on August 17, unless there are objections. If you're interested in writing a blurb for it, just write whatever you want and I'll format it if necessary. If you prefer, I'll try doing the blurb myself. - Dank (push to talk) 02:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Fine with me; go ahead and do the blurb -- I think it should be a straightforward trim of the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
TFA
my story today |
Thank you today for Radiocarbon dating, introduced (in 2015): "Radiocarbon dating has revolutionized archaeology, and the invention of the method earned Willard F. Libby a Nobel Prize. I've been working on the article for over a year, and I think it's now ready to be nominated here. It's benefitted from a peer review, where several editors helped improve the article."! - My story today pictures a friend whose birthday is today ;) - at a fancy place where we listened to music she helped publishing. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Gerda. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Finally: June pictures updated, with three great RMF concerts! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- While today's DYK highlights Santiago on his day, I did my modest share with my story today, describing what I just experienced, pictured. I began the article of the woman in green. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Bot bug? Duplicated short descriptions
Hi Mike, looking at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, I see a few duplicated short descriptions (see for example, Airbus Beluga, 2023 Djerba shooting, Ida Hunt Udall. Is this a bug in your bot or a problem from elsewhere? —Kusma (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- It looks like the error happens when the nomination is made -- see here. So it's happening in {{GA}}, before the bot looks at it. Olivaw-Daneel, you were the one who made the change -- any idea what's causing the issue? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think the error was caused by recent edits to Module:Template parameter value, which was used to extract the shortdesc. I've switched {{GAN}} over to a different module and things should be fine now. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think the error was caused by recent edits to Module:Template parameter value, which was used to extract the shortdesc. I've switched {{GAN}} over to a different module and things should be fine now. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Doc Savage (magazine) scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 17 August 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 17, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Things that might count towards GA stats
Mike, since we've just been chatting about another matter, perhaps it's a good moment to ask whether some other things might get counted in the GA stats. It's obviously a side-issue but it could still be significant.
One thing is participating at GAR, helping to save articles from being delisted. There are some at User:Chiswick Chap/Rescues (most recent at the end). These may be tricky to count as roles are flexible and there can be more than one person involved in a rescue.
Another thing is taking over as a GAN reviewer, when, as at Talk:Agriculture in Turkey/GA1, a reviewer becomes unavailable or drops out for some reason (in this case, two reviewers have gone, for different reasons). In this case I've just started, but have already done a substantial amount of work on the case. Again, I can see that calculating the stats could be tricky as there are multiple people involved; but it'd be nice to be credited where credit is due. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd love to be able to track this sort of thing. The main reason I can't do it at the moment is that none of the templates record nominator(s) or reviewer(s). The {{GA}} template, for example, doesn't have a nominator= or reviewer= field (or nominator2= etc.). That would enable someone to go back in time and edit an old template to add nominator, reviewer, and if necessary conominators and co-reviewers. Or even to remove a nominator and replace them if someone takes over dealing with the review; I've certainly seen that happen. It would also be necessary to add similar fields to {{Article history}}. I've suggested this at both templates' talk pages and got no support and some minor pushback. (I can find those links if you don't see the threads immediately.) I think we'd need to get consensus somewhere to make the change. There are some technical issues I'd need to think about, but it could be done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. That explains several mysteries at once, like why it's so hard to see who nominated a long-completed GA from the article's talk page. I'd certainly support the additional data fields if you ever try again. Well, until we get a better system, we have the one we've got. Perhaps the fact that there are various uncounted GA-related entities in the mix should at least tell us that editors contribute productively to the GA project in multiple ways. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Promotion of Battle Birds
Congratulations, and thank you today for The Black Cat (US magazine), "about an unusual and somewhat influential fiction magazine started at the end of the 19th century. It published many writers who later became famous -- Henry Miller's first sale was to The Black Cat, and it saved Jack London's career by buying a story from him just as he was about to give up writing. The covers were the work of the publisher's wife, Nelly Littlehale Umbstaetter, who went on to have a minor career as an artist. It published science fiction and fantasy, but also just about every other kind of fiction."! - I have a Bach cantata and a saxophonist on the same page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Gerda. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 57
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 57, May – June 2023
- Suggestion improvements
- Favorite collections tips
- Spotlight: Promoting Nigerian Books and Authors
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi Mike, can you help on the above article, which has been nominated at GA? I was intending to review it, but instead put the cleanup tag. After getting a reply from the nominator, I'm not sure who is right (see User_talk:Amitchell125#DeepStateMap.Live_fixes). Am I going wrong somewhere? Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Hi -- I've only had time for a quick look, and am about to head off to work so won't be able to really look again until tonight. I suggest posting to WT:GAN where you'll get more eyes on the question (or maybe a TPS will have time to comment here). I will say from that brief look through that in a couple of cases it does seem that primary sources are being relied on for more than just "this message was sent at this time", which would be a concern. I'd have to read in more detail to be sure. I can't say if I'd have quick-failed it -- typically I only quick-fail if I don't think an article is salvageable with a reasonable amount of work, but I'd be hard-pressed to give you a good definition of "reasonable". If you post to WT:GAN I'll follow the conversation there and may chip in again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, will do. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Avengers
Hey, if you have time in the coming months(?), would you be willing to do the GA review for Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe)? You did a great job and helped a lot on your review for Thanos a few months ago, and this is another important MCU article that's planned to be the main article in an eventual GT/FT. It's another tough one to write like Thanos was that might need the eye of someone who doesn't watch every MCU movie. There's no rush since I only nominated the article a couple days ago, but I figured I'd ask. -- ZooBlazertalk 07:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm only doing the occasional GA review at the moment, and when I do I'm trying to prioritize the ones that are at the top of the sorting order. Avengers is actually fairly near the top, comparatively, so I'm not saying I won't review it, but I can't tell you when I'd get to it. Unfortunately I know even less about the Avengers than I did about Thanos, having never read any of the relevant comics as a kid (I was an X-Men and to a lesser extent Fantastic Four fan!) so it's a bit daunting, but that also means it would be interesting to wade into. I see you've done several GA reviews; if you do a handful more, that would boost it up the list more and make it more likely to get a good review, since the sort order depends on how many GA reviews you've done. But I'll definitely keep an eye out for it when I'm looking for something to review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
DYK for Leeds 13
On 23 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Leeds 13, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Leeds 13's attempt at staging a holiday at Leeds University Union's expense was taken literally by the British press? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Leeds 13. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Leeds 13), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Do you have a list of everyone who nominated and/or reviewed an article in the last year?
I need to send out signup reminders for the backlog drive that starts on August 1 and this list would be helpful to me. If you're busy I can get it another way. (t · c) buidhe 01:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- I can get it, at least back to November last year. Will do it tonight if it's easy otherwise probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
OK, here's the list. It includes IPs, I'm afraid; hope that's not too tricky to remove. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Extended content
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Editor of the Week
Editor of the Week | ||
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project) |
User:AirshipJungleman29 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
- I nominate Mike Christie to be EOTW — seriously!! 84 Featured Articles on science fiction magazines, prehistoric and Anglo-Saxon history, and literally everything in between...plus all the reviews he does at FAC; and that's not even counting the fabulous work he's done with ChristieBot at the Good Article process, totally revamping the whole thing, all while doing 380 (!!!) reviews at GAN? I can't believe he's been editing since 2006, with 60000 edits, and he hasn't received this yet—in my opinion, long, long overdue. Plus 663 reviews at FAC [!], 174 of them in 2022. And keeping the FAC statistics up to date and the associated tools working. I suspect that he has secretly cloned himself in order to deal with the backlog. How on earth have we let this literal angel go without an EOTW award for seventeen years. This nomination was seconded by User:Gog the Mild, Userlead:Unlimited and User:CT55555.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 12:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)