User talk:Mike Christie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Loch Muick


1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12

Advice needed[edit]

Greetings. Since D.Gray-man was too big to write and a fellow user decided to rewrite some parts before a second nomination, I decided to instead focus on a smaller article: Yu Kanda. I based it to look more like recent FAs like Allen Walker and Naruto Uzumaki. It is currently being copy-edited by a member from the guild of copy editors. Do you have any suggestions about the article? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, my time on-wiki is a bit limited at the moment, for several reasons, and I'm trying to focus on one article I'm working on. I don't mind helping with a review of a FAC that's near the bottom of the list, if a FAC coordinator requests it, but otherwise I'm trying not to take on anything else for now. Best of luck with the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction article has been scheduled as today's featured article for May 15 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 15, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the magazine that you "can actually recommend"! And good wishes for your health, sorry to hear that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! The shoulder is improving daily; I can type pretty much normally now, so long as I don't overdo it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for letting us know. Once upon a time, a TFA was scheduled the day before it appeared, then a bot informed the main author less than an hour before it appeared, and that was not great (said the author). - It's much better now, with several people on the scheduling job, and personal notification! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


Another favour if possible! This one (FAC here) has had quite a bit of support, but I'd appreciate if you could take a look at the prose just to see if it's OK. If not, not problems. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

And if you're feeling energetic, there's another one here which is close to promotion but I'd like another eye on the prose. If you can't do that one, I can get it myself. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do this weekend. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Hello! I apologize for the intrusion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help that you could offer for my current [Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Faces FAC]. I understand that it is a busy time of the time and that you may not have the time or energy to look at this, but I would greatly appreciate. Thank you either way! Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
    Hi -- I'll see if I can find time, but it depends on a few other things. I'm having minor surgery on my right shoulder next Thursday, which will curtail my typing for a few days at least, so if I don't get to it by then I'm probably not going to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your response and good luck with your surgery. Aoba47 (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
    Looks like Ian started a review just after you posted here, so I'm going to let this go for now. Sarastro1, let me know if you'd still like me to take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately for me, the article did not pass. I have made a lot of changes to the prose and I guess you weren't able or chose not to reply from my ping on it, so I would like to ask if you make your final comments on the prose here or on the article talk page and I'll see what I can do before two weeks. If you don't want to talk about it any further, please reply to this message and say that is the case. Thank you. 1989 12:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    1989: I'm willing to help with the article, but it'll probably be a few days till I can get to it -- I have made commitments to work on a couple of other things, plus I will be doing some TFA scheduling starting in the next few days, plus I'm out of town for a couple of days next week. If I haven't posted on the article talk page by the end of May, ping me again. If you have no objections, I will go ahead and edit the article to fix the issues I see, rather than just post comments; then we can discuss as needed if you don't agree with my edits. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    Fine by me. -- 1989 17:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

1954 Guatemalan coup d'état[edit]

I got this to FA status a few weeks ago, and I've been thinking it would be nice to have it on the main page on 18 June, the day on which the coup was officially launched. Wasn't sure about the process for doing this more than a month in advance, though, as this would be just my second TFA. Can you help? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You can add it to WP:TFARP, which we look at as well as WP:TFAR. At the moment we're scheduled almost a month ahead, but that's just because Jim is away from home much of May and had to get it done early. Normally we schedule about 10-15 days ahead, and I won't be looking at June till at least May 15, so you should have plenty of time to nominate it at TFAR. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks: done. Vanamonde (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

True Detective (season 1)[edit]

Greetings! I plan on nominating this article for FA again in the very near future. For now though, I'm withholding as I would like your input on namely just the reviews section. You had given feedback on the article on a previous nomination, the only glaring issue at that time was the fact that the reviews section wasn't declarative, and thus didn't read like an encyclopedic summary. I've made some adjustments and attempted to address the issue, and if you are able to, you input would be greatly appreciated! DAP 💅 17:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi -- I'd be glad to take a look at it, but I'm going to be having minor surgery on my right shoulder on Thursday, so probably won't be typing much for a few days. If I can get to it tonight or tomorrow night I will. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
DAP388, I've started making some notes; do you have any mroe links to reviews that you think might be useful, or are the ones included in the article all you think should be used? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
There are about 20 other reviews linked to Metacritic that aren't used in the article. All of them aren't necessary but I think an additional few, maybe four or five reviews if not a little more, are fine. I chose reviews at random so feel free to take a look. Here from New York, Entertainment Weekly, Chicago Sun-Times, Boston Herald, and Huffington Post. DAP 💅 00:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, looking through them; I'll ping you when I have something for you to look at. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
DAP388, the Chicago Sun-Times link isn't working, and a quick search isn't finding the intended review -- do you have a working link? And the Boston Herald article is behind a pay wall. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, draft done, on the article talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Starship Troopers[edit]

Greetings, Mike; me again. I've been working on Starship Troopers (the novel), and as you can imagine, there's a lot of folks with a lot of things to say about it. You gave me very useful advice on structuring the reception section for The Left Hand of Darkness; so I was wondering if you would have the time to take a look at the reception section here as well. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure; might be a few days as I'm going to have minor surgery on my shoulder tomorrow. When you see me editing again after tonight, ping me again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, and no problem. I'm going to send it to GAN once I'm done writing, but it's usually months before it's picked up, so plenty of time to tweak things; and I think it's at or close to GA status in any case. Best of luck with the surgery, and with resisting the urge to edit while you recover ;) Vanamonde (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hope the shoulder goes well...[edit]

And you are pain-free shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! No doubt I'll be typing with my left hand as soon as the meds let me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Dating methods[edit]

Hi Mike. I hope your shoulder is recovering OK. An editor raised a query at Talk:Atapuerca Mountains#'number' confusion which got me checking the sources for the dating of the Atapuerca fossils and I found this source page 30 which says "The “Aurora” Stratum has been palaeomagnetically dated as belonging to the Matuyama Chron (> 0.78 Ma BP) by Parés and Pérez-González (1995) and Falgueres et al. (1999) using a combination of ERS and U-series applied to fossilized ungulate tooth enamel." I am not sure what to make of this and I wonder whether you can help. I cannot find what ERS means and it is not in the ERS disambig. The U-series dating article says it has an upper age limit of "somewhat over 500,000 years" which suggests not reliable at 780,000. There is also the question of whether 1990s measurements are too old. I assume they would not be for C14 dating as it has advanced so much since then, but does the same apply to other techniques such as U-series? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I would guess it should be ESR, not ERS. I don't know much about ESR; I looked through the chapter in Mike Walker's Quaternary Dating Systems (2005) on ESR and it looks like the uncertainty on an ESR date is generally at least 10%. Walker talks about some sources of error but quotes a ~710,000 Tibetan Plateau date with some confidence, so it looks like it's OK at the age range in question. For U-series Walker gives 500,000 as an approximate upper limit when using mass spectrometry; the limit is less for alpha-particle spectrometry. It could well be that the techniques have been refined since then. As for the age of the dates, I would be less concerned about that; a measurement is a measurement, after all, and unless we know something now that wasn't known then I don't see any reason why dates determined a couple of decades ago should be regarded as untrustworthy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Mike. That's very helpful. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

As a heads up...[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Ban appeal for Paul Bedson Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; posted a comment there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Wasn't sure how often you read the dramah boards. I had, mercifully, blanked much of that period from my mind. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I used to religiously remove them from my watchlist but now I leave them there if they show up; I had ANI on my watchlist but not AN, so thanks for the note. It was your RFA, in fact, that changed my mind; I remember thinking that my decade-long "ignore almost everything I that isn't content-related" attitude probably needed to be re-examined if *you* were running for admin. And congrats on the WP:200, by the way; well-deserved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: Tidus scheduled for TFA[edit]

Really cool. I'm happy with that. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)