Archives

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14  · 15  · 16  · 17

GAN review requested[edit]

Saw the above and thought I might trouble you for a review. I've put forward Free Comic Book Day for GAN (review page) and hope to promote it for DYK on 7 May, the 20th edition of the event. I'm a little worried about the timeline as I haven't attracted a reviewer at GAN or from Wikiproject Comics. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I'm currently focusing on FAC reviews, but may start picking up some GAN reviews in a week or two -- if I do I'll keep an eye out for your nomination. Though I generally tend to start with the oldest reviews, to be honest, unless it's an area I have a particular interest in. Good luck with the nomination if I don't get to it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christianization of the Roman Empire[edit]

Hello Mike! I don't know if you remember me, but you were terrifically kind to me when I was attempting to take Biblical criticism to FA. You said then that if you could ever do anything for me you would. Now I am trying to take advantage of that. I have another long article that has been nominated for GA twice. The first reviewer quit, and then it seems to have automatically failed because it was abandoned. The second reviewer quick-failed it without giving it a chance. So, it's failed twice without ever having had an actual review. The article is controversial for some, I understand that. This field has shifted dramatically in the last fifty years, and not only are a lot of people having trouble letting go of the old opinions, these old views continue to be posted on WP as if they were still current. This distresses me Mike, both for my field of study and for the quality of WP as an encyclopedia. I know you are an FA reviewer, (and I would be willing to do that again if anyone said that was appropriate), but it's nominated for GA right now because I'm a big chicken. If you would look at it, and tell me if you think it stands a snowball's chance in Hell to get any recognition, at all, anywhere, I would be ever so grateful. It's long and complicated, but it's a big subject Mike - a big controversial subject. I have put a lot of work into it. Everything in it is accurate, represents the current majority views, and is well sourced. I hate for it to be treated badly because some people don't like change. Please help me Obi wan, you're my only hope. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jen, of course I remember! I should have some time to take a look starting later this week, and I'll post to the talk page then. I look forward to it! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know I am attempting to rewrite the article based on your suggestion of following chronology. It is actually simplifying everything. I am working in my sandbox and will be working awhile, but when I am done, I will get you to take a look at it again. It still won't have 'change' hung on the events you expected to find, and it will have a lot more sociology, but it will be irrefutably accurate and hopefully easy to follow and understand. I am trying to cooperate Mike, and thank you for your efforts, and hope that things are still good between us in spite of disagreement. Thank you again for showing up when I call. You're the best. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Things are still good! I'm glad you're taking this so well. I wouldn't want to lose the work you've done, though; I think you should plan on creating a new article about the historiography and move the great majority of what you've done into that. I'd be happy to take a look at a draft of the revised article when you're ready, with the usual caveat that I'm no expert. Can I suggest that I take a look at an early stage, perhaps not much more than outline? That might be best, in case the discussion leads to changes; I'd hate to see you waste work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's in my sandbox as we speak - or type - you are welcome to participate at any time, in any way. I am thinking of retitling it "sociological view of Christianization". I won't lose all the work I did - maybe half - but I am adding much more sociology - very plainly and simply explained I hope. Roman empire is a focus for many sociologists apparently. They couldn't do this work before computers, there was just too much data, but I now have a wealth of sources on this topic, and charts and graphs that are way cool, and if I can just figure out how to paraphrase it so Display name 99 can understand it, then I am golden.

There is nothing to take well, Mike, honestly. I am not wrong in what I said, my facts are correct. Christianization did not happen from the top down because of Constantine. But if I can't write this in a way that illuminates that for intelligent people like you, then the article is indeed a failure. I agree. Display name 99 said he didn't learn anything. Ouch. That has to be fixed. So I needed a whole new approach, and you offered a suggestion that provides a natural framework. I am using it and combining it with the sociological info that demonstrates the whole process. It's quite fascinating and quite apparent when you see what all these scholars have done. The new article is a discussion of what, but that is only to demonstrate how. That is still the central question, and it seems quite amazing to be writing this at a time when 200 years of scholarship has been turned on its head. We live in interesting times! You are always welcome, and I mean that, but maybe give me a little time to get it a little organized? Or not! Let's just leave it at, you are always welcome. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you'd like me to take a look. My main suggestion would be to think in terms of summary style -- chronologically or sociologically, it's a gigantic topic, and it would be very easy to hit 20,000 words. An outline identifying the component articles in the overall tree might help focus. Then you could have multiple sandboxes, and work on different bits of the tree at once if you want to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It really is a gigantic topic, and I am trying to keep all of what you said in mind. Including both chronology and sociology is going to require extensive cutting, but that's okay, most things can be summarized in a sentence. It's the details that Display Name 99 said were essential that get in the way. I am trying to just pick one detail for each summary statement, but even that is already adding up! Going back and cutting and cutting!! This is not only the current view, it is without doubt the method and view of the future, so it's really important that wiki has this. I will persevere and try to learn all that I can from all of you more seasoned editors. Thank you for your patience! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Combe Hill[edit]

Congratulations, Mike Christie! The article you nominated, Combe Hill, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived. This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May songs

Congratulations! - Thank you today for G-8 and His Battle Aces, "about an air-war pulp magazine set in World War I. Apparently the Germans used zombies, mummies, Martians, and giant bats to attack the allies in World War I, but somehow none of these events made it into the official history books, perhaps because the heroic G-8 stopped the German threats over and over again."! - DYK serious yesterday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

today performances in Ukraine - for Ukraine - for peace, at the bottom an imaginary set of eight DYK - and more May pics--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like my talk today (actually mostly from 29 May - I took the title pic), enjoy the music, two related videos worth watching! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022[edit]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Popular Publications: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Firestar464 (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I do have Twinkle installed and should probably figure out how to use it properly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you![edit]

Thank you for your help on getting Total Recall to Featured Status, I appreciate your time! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAC source review[edit]

Hello! Last month you did a source review for my FAC of Arnold Bennett, and it was so helpful – saving me, among other things, from an embarrassing omission – that I wonder if you might be inclined to do another source review, this time of Georges Feydeau? Entirely understand if not, but I hope you will be able to look in. Tim riley talk 18:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should be able to. I don't have time tonight, but will see if I can look in in the next couple of days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am staggered by the patience and thoroughness of the best source reviewers like you and the late and still sorely missed Brian Boulton. I have done a few source spot checks over the years (I live down the road from the British Library, so have access to practically all printed books) but going through an article reference by reference and source by source as you do is something I admire more than I can say but would, on balance, rather die than attempt myself. We are lucky to have colleagues like you and BB who actually enjoy it! Long may you continue! Tim riley talk 20:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm flattered to be mentioned in the same breath as Brian. My newly semi-retired state has given me a burst of enthusiasm which may or may not last. And I still learn something new every time -- I'd never seen that web archive template before. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAC for Kaze to Ki no Uta[edit]

Thanks again for your source review at my FAC for Kaze to Ki No Uta; I was very grateful for your input. The nomination is currently in the dreaded last slot at FAC – I don't know if it breaks some kind of FAC protocol for a source reviewer to also do a general review, but if you had the time and interest in doing so (and since your comments at my previous FAC for Stucky (fandom) helped eke that article over the finish line), any further comments you had regarding improvements that could be made to the article would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Morgan695 (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I might be able to look at it tomorrow (and there's no issue with doing a source review and a content review on a single article). It's probably OK, though; when something has exactly three reviews, the coordinators are likely to leave it for a week or three to see if anyone else will comment, but it's very unlikely to get archived if there are no negative comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Barkhale Camp[edit]

Congratulations, Mike Christie! The article you nominated, Barkhale Camp, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived. This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Buidhe (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive[edit]

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christianization of the Roman Empire and Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation[edit]

Well I have done all of this as if being pulled through a hedge ass backwards, but I think, I hope, I have finally produced something worthy of Wikipedia. The original article has been split, which turns out to have been the right thing to do. I went along kicking and screaming only to end up saying, "Oh! Look at that!" You were right - you deserve to hear that - and making CRE a parent article that contains a general overview of all the theories old and new was the right thing to do. It's still historiography, but that's all there is in this field. CRE as diffusion of innovation is a sub-article that primarily presents one view. I originally tried cramming too much into one article, and all it did was make a mess of all of it. I see that now.

I think you deserve an explanation for my recent erratic behavior. I want you to know I am not always this difficult. My mother died in March, and my sister stole part of the inheritance - 160,000$ - not a fortune, but it really hurt that she would do that, so that, piled on top of grief, has made for a very difficult aftermath for me. I think I am maintaining balance and calm - and then I find I am not. It is proving to be a difficult year of "firsts" - first birthday without either my mother or my sister, etc. - and it's all made me a little thin skinned. It's a little like walking around with your skin turned inside out and every nerve exposed. The air moving hurts. So I'm a little crazy this year, and I apologize, and hope you won't hold it against me. Anyway, this isn't a play for sympathy, I just thought you should know, so you wouldn't be averse to ever hearing from me again. At least the articles are done now. I hope. Please gods of Wikipedia, let it be so. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jen, I'm so sorry to hear about your mother, and about the way your sister treated you, but I'm delighted to hear that the division of the article has worked out welll. I'm travelling for a few weeks so won't be on Wikipedia much but will try to find time to read through both the articles. What are you planning on working on next? Knowing you it's probably something ambitious like Christianity! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are a kind hearted person and I am glad to know you. Do not for a minute waste any precious downtime on me, you do whatever best pleases you and yours and enjoy yourself. Thank you for understanding. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 50[edit]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]