User talk:Mike Christie

If I leave a message on your talk page, I'll keep your talk page on my watchlist until you reply (for a few days, at least), so you can reply here or on your talk page as you prefer. If you use a {{talkback}} template here, please sign it so the archive bot will archive it.

Loch Muick Archives

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7

"Adjustment Team" Copyright status section removal

I've responded to your note at Talk:Adjustment_Team#Copyright_section_removed. Please read and respond one way or another. Thank you. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I've replied to your response at Talk:Adjustment_Team#Copyright_section_removed. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've made another lengthy reply at Talk:Adjustment_Team#Copyright_section_removed and I've gone ahead and replaced the section in the article though I don't seem to have the fancier reference format. Please read the talk page and let me know what you think. Of course, if you still think the section should be removed you know how to do that but I'm hoping you'll now feel it does belong there though you may have some thoughts about the wording. I don't know if I'm being bold or just too sleepy to use sound judgement. I think the copyright section for "The Last Of The Masters" was reworded a bit by an editor who is much more experienced than me. You might want to glance at that. It was an FA so I presume it was thoroughly gone over by a number of experienced editors and administrators. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Question about picture files

Hello:) I recently uploaded a photo onto the "Voting rights in the United States" page. I entered my citation into the photo description, but it says that I need to cite it in the file as well. I can't figure out how to do this. Can you help, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richal13 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Voting rights in the United States: image citation

To find the photo from the FreeDigitalPhotos.net homepage I scrolled down while looking on the left margin. On that margin there is a section entitled "Contributors". Click on that and it will bring you to a list of photographers whose images are in the website. Maggie Smith, I believe, is toward the middle of the page. Click on her name and her photos will appear. The photo that I used is called "The Great Depression." If that doesn't work, here are two URL numbers. The first one is to the actual photo, the second to the list of photos contributed by Maggie Smith.

http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Emotions_g96-The_Great_Depression_p2211.html

http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=172

Thank you for all of your help. It is greatly appreciated.

Richal13 (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Richal13 (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Kansas republican party

Hi Mike,

I was wondering if you could take a look at the page I've been working on. Kansas Republican Party . I'm not sure if there is anything else that I should add, or if my introduction section is detailed enough. Thanks! AdrienneAAnderson (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mike Christie. You have new messages at WP:MCQ.
Message added 23:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Mike, I see you around but we have not had any interaction. ww2censor (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I remember the FAC where we met. I need to start reviewing again soon so perhaps we'll run into each other again. Thanks for the answer on the copyright question; I suspected as much but it's good to have it confirmed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been doing more image copyright stuff rather than writing, so I must get back to that too. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Op-Ed

Sorry for the late response. I like it. It states lots of things very well. --Guerillero | My Talk 15:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

We are currently crunching some numbers at WP:MED here [1]. Things do not look that upbeat in Canada. Have been involved with a great deal of outreach as seen here [2] and the effect has been mixed at best.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Those are very interesting stats. Any objections if I repost those links at the op ed talk page? (Unless you would rather post there yourself?) I think these should be part of the conversation there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Would like to finish them which I will not be able to do until next week. Feel free to post them how they are though.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I've reposted them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Finally got around to reading it - a good piece, thank you! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

POL 214 EMERGENCY

I don't know what happened but all my work was suddenly deleted and I do not know why, I don't know what happened or what I did wrong I just need help Mcking4 (talk) 09:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I just went to look at this but, wow! Mike's on the ball!  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

... me too. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. What are y'all doing awake? I'm on the east coast and an early riser, but now I am visualizing some kind of watchlist monitoring tool that wakes people up when they see the word "EMERGENCY" in an edit summary .... Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It's exam week. I needed a break. ;) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Egbert of Wessex

This is a note to let the main editors of Egbert of Wessex know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 19, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 19, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Egbert (ca. 769 or 771 – 839) was King of Wessex from 802 until his death in 839. Little is known of the first 20 years of Egbert's reign, but it is thought that he was able to maintain Wessex's independence against the kingdom of Mercia, which at that time dominated the other southern English kingdoms. In 825 Egbert defeated Beornwulf of Mercia and ended Mercia's supremacy at the Battle of Ellandun, and proceeded to take control of the Mercian dependencies in southeastern England. In 829 Egbert defeated Wiglaf of Mercia and drove him out of his kingdom, temporarily ruling Mercia directly. Later that year Egbert received the submission of the Northumbrian king at Dore, near Sheffield. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle subsequently described Egbert as a bretwalda, or "Ruler of Britain". Egbert was unable to maintain this dominant position, and within a year Wiglaf regained the throne of Mercia. However, Wessex did retain control of Kent, Sussex and Surrey; these territories were given to Egbert's son Æthelwulf to rule as a subking under Egbert. When Egbert died in 839, Æthelwulf succeeded him; the southeastern kingdoms were finally absorbed into the kingdom of Wessex after Æthelwulf's death in 858. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I've watchlisted... the more the merrier? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. They were going to use a Victorian picture; there were actually two in the article. I guess I missed it when those were added. Not sure why people think those add anything to an article like this. I cut them out and replaced it with the ASC image, but I'll bet you a nickel that someone tries to add at least one of them back in during the day on the main page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I see someone added the chest in Winchester Cathedral (pic by me!) ... probably need to source that and the birthdate info - I couldn't find anything speculating on his birthdate in my sources - but I'm not so into AS kings either... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice pic! I need to go take a look at what they did and see if anything needs to be changed, but I'm busier than usual right now in real life (a friend and I are putting a web start up together). I have no recollection of those birthdates and suspect they are imaginary, but will have to check. I can't think of a source that would plausibly give Egbert an age except for the ASC; maybe it's there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Paid student editing

It seems that the WMF is currently sitting on a fair amount of cash. What do you think of the idea of the WMF paying college students to improve Wikipedia's "core" topic articles? Cla68 (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Lurking comment: why students? That said, the idea may have merit - have you seen the Wikipedia:Bounty board? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

One possible problem that occurs to me is that I believe the Foundation staff can't edit content using their WMF usernames, because if they do, they lose the claim that the WMF has no control over content and are simply the carrier of the data. (I forget the legal term, but it's the same law that says AT&T can't be sued if terrorists talk over AT&T phone lines.) It might be that that would also prevent the WMF directly paying for content, though as Piotr says perhaps they could get round this by offering bounties.

However, I can think of two other reasons not to do this. One is that a dollar spent on paid editing is a dollar that is gone forever. Once that paid editor stands up from the keyboard, there's no more benefit from that dollar. A dollar spent on capabilities, or recruitment, or on making the USEP more effective, might give back much more value over the long term. So I could see the WMF saying that it's not a good use of their cash.

Another reason is related to the general GEP/USEP conversations that have been occurring in various places, and that is that the students are not, generally, all that good at editing. If we were to pay experienced editors we'd no doubt get better results than if we paid students -- but the experienced editors are editing for free, so that doesn't seem a sensible way to spend money. I suspect (with no evidence, just a hunch) that students who turn out to be good at editing are also the students most likely to become hooked on Wikipedia editing for free. So I think it's likely to be a poor investment if we use students. Using professional writers would be much better, but also much more expensive, and would be subject to the same comments as above.

By the way, thank you both for your positive comments at the op ed talk page. One of my concerns is that the WMF is not really paying close enough attention to the feedback from the community (though I think this is a good sign that the WMF are listening). If you think my suggested changes to the USEP are good ones, then I think it would be good to say so to Annie Lin, or Frank Schulenberg, or Jami Mathewson. I'm about done with nagging them myself -- after all, they may well be listening and absorbing it all; I don't want to say they're not. Plus they have access to data that I don't have, so perhaps they're going to make great decisions. But if you think it's worth suggesting changes, I do think those are the people to talk to, not to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Citation from Tuck in Amazing Stories article

Hello, Im reviewing the italian translation of Amazing Stories article on it.wiki, so Im checking the sources referecence. There is a reference listed in the Notes section as 'Tuck, "Amazing Stories", p. 535', but I cannot find any reference to this book in the References section, can you help me ?--Moroboshi (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added the reference to the article. Thanks for catching that -- I went back and checked the old version, and the omission was missed in the FAC review. Let me know if you have any other questions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Have a nice holiday, Mike. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- and the same to you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

	Season's greetings and best wishes for 2012!
	Thanks for all you do here, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Have a great holiday! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

A large scale student assignment.

Mike,

I've expanded the stats that WP:MED collected on a large psychology student assignment HERE and used them to write an essay: User:Colin/A large scale student assignment – what could possibly go wrong?. I'd value your opinion. You can use the essay talk page if you like. Colin°^Talk 22:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

FAC pingie

eeek, seeing the above post, I need to get in there and help, but I had a rough IRL December. Anyway, since you've always been the best at managing RFCs if one was ever needed (ie, let discussions run long enough to detemine if there are any issues to be put forward in an RFC), I wanted to point you to Wikipedia talk:FAC#FAC 2012. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi -- I'll comment there too, but this is just a note to say I'm willing to help manage an RfC if one is needed. (Not sure how I got such a good reputation with you for that, but thanks for the compliment.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! You're not only good at determining if one's needed, but what the questions are and that ample discussion has first fleshed them all out. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I may have to blush. Actually, I don't think I will comment at WT:FAC -- if there is some organizational work to do in managing discussion, I'd rather not have contributed, though I suppose over the years I've commented extensively enough at FAC that someone could figure out my opinions on most of these issues fairly easily.

I'll keep an eye on that discussion, and if you want to suggest me as a discussion coordinator who can try to distill the discussion into something that would be profitable to RfC, please do so -- or if you think I should chime in and suggest that, that's fine too. I'm actually fairly busy in RL at the moment; a friend and I are launching a web startup, and since I can't afford to give up my real job I am contributing what I can to that effort with the time I used to use to edit Wikipedia. I'll have time for this if necessary, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to apologize again for asking you to sign on to what became quite a task-- had I known, I would have hesitated to ask you to commit so much time. Thank you again for all your work, all the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I'm happy to help. I didn't want to be too effusive at WT:FAC, for fear of appearing non-neutral, but I hope you understand how highly I and many others value the enormous amount of work you've done over the last four years. I don't think it's possible for anyone who is not a regular at FAC to truly understand either the amount of work involved in what you do, or just how difficult the job is. Thanks again; and I hope we are as lucky with the next delegate (or whatever the structure turns out to be) as we were when you took the job on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, some lucky person is going to find out that it's all work, mostly grunt work, with the reward of daily pokes in the eye with a stick, very few others help "clerk" (update the urgents, check FACs to make sure image and sources are reviewed, so on), and the "power" some are after resides in the "Oppose" button-- that's where FACs are improved and FAs are produced. I do appreciate your kind words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Given how badly train-wrecked this discussion has become, I'll add my voice to Sandy's in wishing you the best of luck keeping the next RFC from blowing up too. In the meantime, I'm soliciting input (privately, by email) from the current delegates (Sandy and Karanacs included) on how we should proceed from here. Raul654 (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm in the middle of writing up some notes offwiki now, to clarify my thoughts on the situation so far, and would appreciate any comments you or anyone else might have. I think it would be best if I avoided private communication while I have the RfC baton, just to avoid any appearance of impropriety, but I would be glad of input. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The 17 questions you posted on WT:FAC were helpful in organizing the discussion there and I think the RFC would be best served by organizing it along similar lines. And at the risk of making a self-serving comment, I'd like to avoid breathing any more life into TCO's let's-elect-the-director campaign. The naked politiking it encouraged has been unseemly and divisive, and I think the flop that was TCO's RFC should close the book on that suggestion. Raul654 (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If, as seems likely, the consensus tomorrow night (when I plan to close the straw poll) is for some discussion of the leadership structure, I think the hard part is going to be determining the set of questions to be asked; it's hard because of the dependencies. For example, any RfC that implies an election (whether one time, or regular) for the post of FA director brings many more questions with it -- timing, how they're run, frequency, recalls. I'm currently thinking that there's a natural hierarchy that we should proceed down. We might start with the question of whether the post as currently constituted is OK as it is with no changes, and then a yes vote on that would render many of the other questions unnecessary. The question of periodic reconfirmation might come up too -- that could perhaps be framed as different to elections, but one could also argue that there's no way to say one won't do periodic reconfirmations, because someone can always start an RfC on that topic if they want to. Anyway, it remains to be seen if others will comment, so I don't want to jump the gun and assume that will be the topic.

One thing that would probably be useful would be a clear statement of the FA director role. I've been around here for a while and I think I could probably write one myself, but it might be better if you did. Is that something you could put together? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That link to a picture of you on your userpage is a deadlink

Thought you'd want to know. --199.233.142.10 (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for letting me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)