User Talk: Mike Christie
Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 21
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = User talk:Mike Christie/Archive%(counter)02d
}}
<div class="usermessage"><div class="plainlinks">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 {{tl|talkback}} template here, please sign it so the archive bot will archive it.
For other discussions, there's no need to ping me if I've edited the page or section you have posted to; I'll be watching those pages for a week or so.
</div></div>
<!--Message box taken from User talk:EWS23-->
{| class="infobox" width="150"
|- align="center"
| right|400px|Loch Muick ↗
'''Archives ↗'''
|- align="center"
|1 ↗{{·}} 2 ↗{{·}} 3 ↗{{·}} 4 ↗{{·}} 5 ↗{{·}} 6 ↗{{·}} 7 ↗{{·}} 8 ↗{{·}} 9 ↗{{·}} 10 ↗{{·}} 11 ↗{{·}} 12 ↗{{·}} 13 ↗{{·}} 14 ↗ {{·}} 15 ↗ {{·}} 16 ↗ {{·}} 17 ↗ {{·}} 18 ↗ {{·}} 19 ↗ {{·}} 20 ↗ {{·}} 21 ↗
|}
{{clear}}
RM on Template:GA nominee ↗
I've closed this RM as moved, and I've also written a patch that should fix any issues with ChristieBot: https://github.com/potatolover68/gabot/commit/cb03670c6e6c752016c6f796431aa9c180ef2aae ↗ (Just using Github since the diff interface is nice there) <span style="color:#ff00ff">m</span><span style="color:#aa22aa">s</span> ↗<span style="color:#aa66aa">k</span> 01:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
:Thanks. I should be able to make the code change later this week; so long as nobody changes the instructions away from using GAN rather than Good article nominee, it should be fine. Mike Christie (talk ↗ - contribs ↗ - library) 01:54, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
::Hello, I think it's {{diff2|1355300169|this edit}} that broke the bot, as it changed what GAN outputs. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
:::@Olivaw-Daneel you're correct; if that edit is reverted then the bot should operate normally again (assuming the GA nominee *is* moved) <span style="color:#ff00ff">m</span><span style="color:#aa22aa">s</span> ↗<span style="color:#aa66aa">k</span> 17:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
::::Are there any updates concerning the bot that I should be aware of? Thanks in advance. <span style="color:#ff00ff">m</span><span style="color:#aa22aa">s</span> ↗<span style="color:#aa66aa">k</span> 17:48, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::At some point I will have to reimplement the moves but with luck there will be no impact on end users so you won't know it's happening. Mike Christie (talk ↗ - contribs ↗ - library) 20:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
Forever under review?
I had the review page for one of my GA nominations deleted a few days ago because the reviewer never made any progress. However, the GA/FA tool ↗ still show the article ↗ as under review. I am just curious if it'll reset once someone else picks up the review since it'll still be /GA1, or will it always show that article as under review in my stats? -- '''<span style="background:#E03A3E; color:#000000; padding:2px;">Zoo</span><span style="background:#000000; color:#E03A3E; padding:2px;">Blazer</span>''' 03:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
:Sorry about the delay replying. I see someone else has picked it up. I think it will be fine now. I will look into fixing this -- the most recent nomination status ought to be what shows up in that tool. Mike Christie (talk ↗ - contribs ↗ - library) 23:35, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
::Hey Mike, sort of partially related, but did the tool forge ↗ stats stop being updated/is there an error? I realized that most things from at least the last week haven't been updated, whether its GANs or reviews. -- <span style="border:1px solid #F00;border-radius:9px;padding:2px 4px;text-shadow:0 0 4px #F00;font-family:Arial"><span style="color:#000">Zoo</span><b style="color:#000">Blazer</b></span> 17:54, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
:::There's a separate piece of the bot that updates historical data, and it looks like it was stuck because of a particular article that was too large for it to process. I've fixed that and am rerunning it now. Let me know if that doesn't seem to have fixed it. Mike Christie (talk ↗ - contribs ↗ - library) 10:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Looks good now. Thanks! -- <span style="border:1px solid #F00;border-radius:9px;padding:2px 4px;text-shadow:0 0 4px #F00;font-family:Arial"><span style="color:#000">Zoo</span><b style="color:#000">Blazer</b></span> 17:22, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
left|150px ↗
For being one of the 5 sane people in the room.
<span style="color:#F3C">'''Kinopiko'''</span> <sup>in solidarity with Esperanza</sup> 22:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
<br style="clear: both;"/>
Books & Bytes – Issue 74
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"> <div style = "font-size: 1.5em; margin: 0 100px"> right|175px ↗</div> <div style = "line-height: 1.2"> <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">'''The Wikipedia Library''': ''Books & Bytes''</span><br /> Issue 74, March–April 2026 </div> <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
- New partnership: Swissdox
- User survey results
(This message was sent to :User:Mike Christie ↗ and is being posted here due to a redirect.)
<!-- Message sent by User:Samwalton9 (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wikipedia_Library/Newsletter/Recipients&oldid=30576650 -->
(reposting an earlier question)
Way back in February I asked if - as the author of WP:RECEPTION ↗ which has a similarly structured issue - for advice on Lake Tauca#Scenarios and research history ↗. I am not sure what the ideal fix is - especially since this seems to be a topic where everyone is using their own dating - and was wondering if you had time to take a look. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
:That does look similar. Assuming all the research you quote is equally high-quality, the ideal solution would be a recent survey article that assesses all the previous research. Without that, I wonder if some of the data could be presented in a table? E.g. one row per research paper, with columns for dating, maximum depth, age of paper, and authors, and perhaps a comments column? It's hard to keep track of the sequence of different estimates without something like that. Then the prose could be reserved for information that won't easily fit into such a table. Mike Christie (talk ↗ - contribs ↗ - library) 10:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
::I don't think such a source exists. What I think is more likely is that folks have settled on a rough dating scheme, averaged from all older sources. That's the assumption I wrote the preceding section under, anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
The All-Story Magazine ↗ scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that The All-Story Magazine ↗ has been scheduled as today's featured article ↗ for 28 August 2026. 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 2026 ↗, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2026 ↗. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be posted there. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors ↗ from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Z1720 (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2026 (UTC)