User talk:Mike Christie/Archive07

I have done some work on Anna in an effort to get it up to FA standard, noting here what I have done in reply to your suggestions. Quite willing to work on the article some more if you feel it's not good enough. --Amitchell125 (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

All the suggestions you made and those about sourcing have now been acted upon. The small map needs altering/redesigning now I've obtained another book, but apart from that I'm feeling happier with the article. --Amitchell125 (talk) 08:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for comforting me :) and sorry for the LATE response, AJona1992 (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by! Good luck with the article -- I hope you're successful with it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

hi Mike Christie,

Thanks for helping with assessment, we got a couple new volunteers to help out! There is a new assessment posted here. There are 25 articles in both this assessment and the next/final assessment. There was a huge amount of content that got added this term, hopefully the randomly selected articles will show it to be high quality. You should see some results form the assessments in the coming months. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ambassador,

We are at a pivotal point in the development of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. Your feedback will help shape the program and role of Ambassadors in the future. Please take this 10 minute survey to help inform and improve the Wikipedia Ambassadors.

WMF will de-identify results and make them available to you. According to KwikSurveys' privacy policy: "Data and email addresses will not be sold, rented, leased or disclosed to 3rd parties." This link takes you to the online survey: http://kwiksurveys.com?u=WPAmbassador_talk

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, Thank You!

Amy Roth (Research Analyst, Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you at all interested in becoming an administrator? Andrevan@ 09:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really, but thanks for asking. I don't have any need for the tools. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, this is just to inform you that I made a .svg version of your Annual circulation of Amazing Stories and uploaded it on commons here, to use on the italian wiki.--Moroboshi (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm glad to see the article get translated into other languages; if I can help in any way, let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The article James A. Corrick has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Long-term unsourced BLP, unable to find significant coverage in third-party reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hut 8.5 21:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you please scrub "Fluorine" for repeat wikilinking? Maybe use Sandy's Excel trick? (I'm going off of your comment on doing it.) I am working on other aspects and would really appreciate the backup.

P.s. Plus I know this will lure you into helping with other aspects. Mwahahaha!

Semper gumby TCO (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm often up for random helping at other articles, but wikilink removal -- man, that's a horrible task. That's why I posted at FAC in the first place. I have a few other things on my plate at the moment so I don't think I'm going to be able to spare the time; if I find myself on a business trip with time to take a look then I will, but I don't think so. Sorry! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

eh...good point.TCO (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't want to post a somewhat public response to your note to me, and apologize in advance, but in my unfamiliarity with Wikipedia, I've been unsuccessful in trying to respond to you via a private message. Here is my response, feel free to delete after you read it:

You asked why I edited the page you wrote on Theodore Sturgeon.

I deleted all references to my marriage to Ted and the birth of our son Andros because in your writing of the page, hidden code was used containing titles of my copyrighted articles, which cause the Wikipedia Theodore Sturgeon page to come up first when "Wina Sturgeon New York Times" or "New York Times Wina Sturgeon" is searched.

Please know that I am a writer who works very hard on my career. For you to code my articles, my work, in order to put a Wikipedia page above my name and the name of one of my major clients when those terms are coupled and searched for by those OBVIOUSLY searching for MY work, is not ethical, and in fact, I would call it a theft of my ranking and my services.

Thus, rather than have one of Ted's eager fans hijack my name and work to get rankings for him, I feel I must very reluctantly edit out all mention of me from your page on Ted (your 'relationship' facts about Ted and I were also wrong, by the way).

Sincerely,

Wina SturgeonNewnameisnewname (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Mike,

Please see the comments I have posted on Sir Rhosis' page. In my copyrighted work "Wina On The Web," which you code my name for, there is NO mention of 'Theodore Sturgeon.' There are merely two mentions of 'Ted,' as follows:

"My husband was a science fiction writer. The moon landing was as important to him as the child inside was to me; but then, in some mysterious way, the two became connected in my mind; the child that would come out of me and the astronauts that would come out of the ship and walk on the moon. I remember Ted and I sat on the edge of the bed, watching our small black and white television set, our shoulders pressed together, both of us feeling a tinge of worry."

The story is about the 1969 moon landing, not about Theodore Sturgeon, who, while referred to as "a science fiction writer" is only mentioned as "Ted," with no last name included. Worse, what I didn't know until just now is that the links to my actual ABC4 story are hard to find; because every link directs readers to your Theodore Sturgeon page on various sites other than Wikipedia. This is a form of plagarism that is totally unethical.

I have not at any point threatened to sue Wikipedia, and it is BOGUS of you to imply that I have. I will again remove the (again) BOGUS coding that is allowing you to wrongfully hijack my more visible name and writing to unethically obtain hits from visitors searching for my work. I have already used my valuable time to provide you with more correct sources you can use, sources that you yourself should have researched as a responsible editor. To paraphrase one of a number of criticisms on the Theodore Sturgeon talk page, source your work and do it accurately. If Theodore Sturgeon deserves a link to the New York Times, don't be lazy, find it yourself and source it, don't use my published work to do the job for you.

Wina Sturgeon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newnameisnewname (talk • contribs) 23:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Mike, I have to agree that the information is not supported by the given source - no where is it clearly stated that the "Ted" in the article is necessarily Theodore Sturgeon - granted, it's quite likely, but using that as a source for the information that he married someone named Wina is OR. Better to search through Locus for the info - you know it'll be somewhere. On the other hand, the above writer really needs to educate themselves about wikipedia ... it's not a deliberate attempt to hijack google search results .. nor is is plagarism ... since it isn't even using one bit of the linked articles content in the wikipedia article. It's also worth noting that Mike didn't add the information ... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair comment; I've replied at the article talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. I agree that it was probably okay, but better to be ultra safe than sorry (I've unwatched the TS page ... I don't need to be sucked into editing sci fi subjects too... ) Thanks for finding the ref - I'm on the road so had zilch access to any of my books. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

So far the new version has not been reverted. It's a pity I don't seem able to communicate with her; I'm sure she could be an asset to that article if she wanted to be. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Mike- Sorry for the very long delay. I finally replied to your comments at Talk:Lara Croft#Post-FAC comments. I hope you have the time to hash things out. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC))

I'll take a look when I can -- see section just above; I'm a bit busy at the moment as I'm trying to get an article ready for FAC myself, and am behind on reviewing. I'd like to help since I spent some time on it at FAC, but it might be a week or two. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate it. I'm in no rush myself. Thanks for all the help on the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC))

Thanks! I appreciate the compliment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

hi Mike Christie,

We finally made it, this is the last assessment request for the Public Policy Initiative! I was really impressed with the content the students developed this term, I hope you enjoyed it too. The last set of articles is at Student Post 2.2. I will keep you updated on results and publications. See you soon! Thanks ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mike, your assessments made a big contribution toward quality evaluation. I will keep you posted on the research and results that come out in the coming months. Talk to you soon, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A commentator on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anna of East Anglia/archive1|Anna of East Anglia FAC archive has said, "Little is known of Anna's life or his reign, as few records have survived from this period" - those problems aren't mentioned in main text, i'd suggest to move this common background information to main text. Maybe a small section briefly discussing the various sources and their influence on today's knowledge about Anna would be useful. Do you consider the following appropriate?

"In contrast with the kingdoms of Northumbria, Mercia and Wessex, little reliable evidence about the Kingdom of the East Angles has survived, because of the destruction of the kingdom’s monasteries and the disappearance of the two East Anglian sees that occurred as the result of Viking raids and settlement. (Yorke, p. 58) The main primary sources for information about Anna’s life and reign is the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (Ecclesiastical History of the English People), completed in Northumbria by Bede in 731, and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, initially written in the ninth century, which mentions Anna’s death.

The mediaeval work known as the Liber Eliensis, written in Ely in the twelfth century, is a source of information about Anna’s daughters Æthelthryth and Seaxburh, and also describes Anna’s own death and burial. (Fairweather, Liber Eliensis, pp. 8-10.)"

This would go at the top in its own section. Other links would be removed to avoid duplication. However, I'm not sure about adding a big chunk like this when the article's already been checked and supported by people, what do you think? --Amitchell125 (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be OK. I would not change my support. You could ping the others who have supported and let them know in case they want to revisit; that would be reasonable, though in fact it's not an enormous change -- just three sentences. I think I'd put them all in one paragraph, though; a single sentence in a paragraph looks quite odd. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add the section and let the supporters know. --Amitchell125 (talk) 06:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on June 25, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 25, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), My comment was grammatically incorrect? Correct it! → Click here for terms and conditions 05:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Would this magazine cover be copyright free (mag only lasted a year or so, very low publication rate). how does one check? Could go into Truthkeeper's FAC. TCO (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not much of an expert on this; my main resource is this page which is mostly about US copyright. It does point to a country by country list which says France is life+70, so for the logo I would think you would need to know if the logo designer died before 1941. For the page itself, which is a typographical layout, I don't know if that would be copyrightable. I think the presence of a logo would prevent you from using it though. You might try asking someone more expert -- anyone who does image reviews at FAC would be a good person to try. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.TCO (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at and improve the A330 article, now in FAC. Sandy has a general concern about clean-ness of the prose. Not sure it's that bad, but let's go after it and try to comply.

To me, the hard part is the first couple sections of the body text, describing the development. Reads a little confusing, because we go back and discuss planes before the 330 and the 330 had different name during development than now. Thinking it might benefit from a little more topic sentence "here is where we are headed" at the front or maybe even a flow chart, showing the development of 330 and sister aircraft (320, 340).

Appreciate your insights and if you have time, the help. (And no request for repeat linking grunt work! Looking for your high level help.)

TCO (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll put it on my list to look at but I typically take months to get to an article review. Sorry! If I have time to do some FAC reviews while it's still there I'll take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears that a current RfCU may be sucking much if not most of the air out of the article talk page. Given that diminished attention, perhaps it would be better to overestimate significantly the archival "time" parameters until such time as that RfCU is concluded. In the interim, standard "size" parameters should suffice. Just my .02 and your consideration is appreciated. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Since you're more involved in that page than I am, go ahead and change it to whatever you think the right parameters are -- I was just guessing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Being heavily invloved in the ongoing discussions, I'm reticent to mess with archival parameters that might, in some fashion, be wrongly interpreted. I avoid archive manipulation anyway, a feature about which I am exceedingly unskilled. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's easy to mess them up -- I've certainly made a few mistakes with MiszaBot. I'm happy to do it myself, but I'm not sure what you mean by "standard" parameters. I know of talk pages with 365 day delays, and of others with 30 day delays. It depends how busy the talk page is. What sort of delay do you think would be suitable? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What meager knowledge I have of "archiving" suggests to me that "time" parameters can be simply removed from the equation utilizing recommended "size" limitations as the archival trigger. Or, rather than getting too deeply into this, I suppose 30 days might be an adequate over-estimation as an interim which can be adjusted accordingly once the RfCU dust settles.

I'm just concerned that a 10 day parameter may remove discussion on issues yet to be resolved and only temporarily dormant. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:TableVersusGraphic-Safari.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:TableVersusGraphic-IE.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:TableVersusGraphic-Firefox.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:TableVersusGraphic-Chrome.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Astonishing stories 194302.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Mike, the Copyright office online database only yields renewals and registrations entered in 1978 and later. Any registrations and renewals from earlier will not appear in this online database (unless the owner decides to register again—usually for additions of new materials or derivatives). Use http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ to check for pre-1978 registrations/renewals. Jappalang (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I created an SVG version of your table. The fonts are Times New Roman (I was not sure what fonts you were using), though that can be changed. I hope this can resolve issues with those who think raster tables might be inefficient. Jappalang (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Mike, just in case you missed it in the above template messages. Use http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ to check for pre-1978 registrations/renewals. Go into a year and among the sections there is one for Periodicals (usually the second section—the first section is generally Books and contributions to periodicals). Jappalang (talk) 10:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have started checking and it would be better to report here (for the sake of transparency for those checking on PUF notifications).

• Startling Stories: 1 image on Commons marked as copyvio, 5 images on Wikipedia marked as PUF; regarding fair use, I think File:Startling Stories 1953 May cover.jpg does not have much critical analysis of its art in the text to substantiate its inclusion. Of more interest to me is Bergey's covers of "a rugged hero, a desperate heroine (in either a metallic bikini or a dangerous state of déshabillé) and a hideous alien menace" (underlines my emphasis). Does Edwards, Ashley, or Ewald point out a specific cover? If yes, the anwer would be simply use that cover. If not, the rationale to use a cover could be weakened (but not so much in my opinion if the cover can be seen to obviously illustrate those elements, e.g. File:Startling Stories 1944 Fall cover.jpg). Jappalang (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Planet Stories: The images seem okay; Planet Stories is not seen in the renewal records for the period. Jappalang (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Fantastic Adventures: Okay as well; none of the covers appear in the renewal records (it seems its copyright holders never bothered to renew most if not all of the issues). Jappalang (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
• Unknown (magazine): Of the images in here, only the Feb 1942 issue's copyright remained in force (image sent to PUF). The rest are fine, although I replaced the Dec 1939 with a JPG. Jappalang (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for checking on these. I haven't had time to get back to the computer till now, so it's a great help. There are a few other sf magazine FAs I need to check but I will do those when I get back from Boston; I'm going out of town for a few days in the morning though I may have some time online. I should have time to take a look at the Startling Stories covers tonight. I'll go ahead and make the claims of fair use I think I can justify and I'll see if you think they are convincing -- I do think some of them can be used, since the covers come in for a fair bit of critical commentary in the sources. Thanks again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mike_Christie, It is so great to meet you in person, I hope to talk with you more tomorrow. I wanted to let you know that FactCompany.com reported the Public Policy Initiative research. They noticed all of our hard work on article quality assessment! As you know, I presented some preliminary results of the Public Policy Initiative today at the Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit; it was very well received by academics. They were impressed with the rigor of the research and that is due in large part to your efforts, so I am interested to hear you thoughts. Yet again, Thank YOU! I will keep you posted as I continue to get the results out there. all the best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• I was pleased to meet you too. Your secret admirer, 75.76.162.50 (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks! I don't know who you are, but I liked meeting everyone I met in Boston, so I can say confidently that I was pleased to meet you too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

  I'm incognito--slumming it to see how IPs are treated. I hope you enjoyed the rest of your stay, Mike. 75.76.162.50 (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

  Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mike, it was great meeting and talking to you in Boston. Keep writing those sci-fi articles! ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mike! Thanks for all the help in the NY-NJ-PA regional meeting; would love to see you again at one of our WP:MEET/NYC get-togethers sometime :)--Pharos (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi to both -- it was a blast! I do keep an eye on the meetups but have never found time and energy to make it to one yet; maybe sometime. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mike, I have hatched an evil plan. Let's propose a wiki session at Kalamazoo on wiki editing (not just in the classroom). I'm on the board of a journal that can sponsor it, and I am going to guess that the Foundation can pick up the tab, at least partly. Ealdgyth, what do you say? You could ride a horse up there! Drmies (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm game.. I can't believe I said that... there was a reason I didn't go on ahead with a graduate degree in medieval studies! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! I'm on it, and will keep you posted. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Eh...oops. The deadline for proposing sessions has passed. What a moron I am--there's a reason my wife makes fun of me, a very good reason. Well, 2013 it is then, if we're all still alive. In the meantime, I am going to propose such sessions at various other conferences (mainly writing conferences, or perhaps regional MLAs). Darn. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL.. keep us informed. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, can I make absent-minded professor jokes? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Please. You can't make me feel more embarrassed than I already am. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested too; 2012 or 2013, or whatever other conference you can persuade to do it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mike, I left a few responses at "Surviving manuscripts". I made two minor edits to the article; have a look when you have a moment. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Another response. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look; thanks! I'm a fairly thorough watchlist watcher, by the way, so you can assume I've seen anything you post and will respond there -- I tend not to need whisperbacks and such. I never know how other people are with watchlists but I think we can assume we'll both be watching that page for a bit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mike_Christie,

Here is a brief summary of the results that I presented at the Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit. If it is alright with you I will keep you posted via email. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That will work fine. Thanks for the pointer! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Super science stories 194305.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There's something wrong with the punctuation of the quotation(s) in the second sentence of the last paragraph of the lead, but I can't see enough of the Google Books snippet view to sort it out. Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Also this: "This series 96 pages and was priced at 1/-", from the Canadian and British editions section. Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've made a few small changes to the Background section in particular, but to be honest I don't see much more scope for distinguishing it from that of Astonishing Stories as Pohl edited both of them simultaneously. Anyway, apart from the two issues above I think it looks good to go. Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think both the above are fixed now; I did some extra tweaking on the second one. I also changed "Popular were" to "Popular was" at one point: American usage is that corporations are singular. I had bollixed up the change to singular and you straightened it out but in the direction of English usage. That's a usage difference that I was completely unprepared for when I moved to the U.S. and it still sounds odd to me, but for a U.S. topic I don't think I have any choice.

Off to FAC now -- thank you very much for the copyedit, and let me know if I can help with anything of yours. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Dammit, those are hard to see. I just spotted you in my watchlist fixing them; thank you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Had a friend quiz me! I've got:

asinine, bragadoccio, rarefy, liquefy, pavilion, vermillion, imposter, moccasin, accommodate, consensus, raccoco, titillate, sacreligious, mayonnaise, empresario, inocculate, supersede, obligato, desecate, resuscitate

So, I got 12/20, I guess! I'm better than the average adult, and as good as someone with an English degree! ^^ Not quite an English professor, though... – GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That's actually a very impressive score, given that you don't have a degree yet. I've seen professional writers get less than ten. I only ever knew one person (David Langford) get 20 and only one other person got over 12, so you should be impressed with your score. When I took the test braggadocio and obbligato were two of the words I got wrong, and I remember being annoyed that they chose loanwords -- it seemed unfair. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've instituted a process to, hopefully and credibly, NPOV resolve remnant hotbutton issues. As a prior participant in that discussion, I would appreciate any observations you might care to offer. Any credible resolution will require significant editor input and your observations would be appreciated. Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Mike- Sorry for the very long delay. I responded at Talk:Lara Croft. I think my latest draft is much more summarized than what is currently in the article. It went from three paragraphs each 7–8 sentences long to two paragraphs both 7 sentences long. Please let me now your thoughts when you have time. Thanks for the help. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC))

I promise to take a look but I'm on vacation much of the rest of August so I may not get time. If I haven't responded by mid-September feel free to nudge me again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:

• Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
• Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
• Watching out for the class as a whole
• Helping students to get community feedback on their work

This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.

You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.

Once you've found a class that you want to work with—especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area—you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.

If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!

Hi Mike, File:Ernest Hemingway family tree.svg has been tagged as orphaned, although it is still in the Ernest Hemingway article but only as a "See also". Is there a way to show that it's being used? I can somehow move it into the body of the page if necessary. Let me know what to do because I don't want to lose it. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Just remove the tag. Easy. Malleus Fatuorum 01:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the tag is fairly harmless, since it doesn't imply an FfD will happen, but it shouldn't be tagged, since it really is in use. I haven't removed it since I suspect the bot would just put it back, though the operator might have written it to avoid that. I've left a message for the operator suggesting that they should check for this situation; let's see what they say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The tag has been removed and it looks as though Fbot is now removing the orphan tag from files which are linked from articles or article talk pages. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. I didn't want to remove the tag because, like you, I thought it would be put back. I'm glad to see the bot has been modified. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mike! I answered on my talk page. In short, there's no restriction by region for Online Ambassadors.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mike, Thanks for signing on as an online ambassador for my political parties course! The students are currently doing some initial research and "needs assessment" for their state party articles, so there's not going to be a lot of on-site activity for the rest of this month. That should change once they start editing in early/mid-October, though. -Shamira Sgelbman (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder to sign (~~~~) the Memorandum of Understanding at Wikipedia:United States Education Program/MOU/sign for the pods for the courses you have signed up for. -- Donald Albury 20:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

student in thomas's class sending a message for class to test messagingMusserc (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm in a POLS 120 class at Lansing Community College and will be editing the Referendum and Initiative page. HurthC1 (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Johnsc74 (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Student from POLS 120 class. Leekse (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am a student from Lansing Community College, and I would like to say thank you for being our online ambassador during our project. --B.Davis21 (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I have signed on to the course page, thankyou for helping our class with this project.Racel1 (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Mike - one of my students tried to edit the article on Jim Crow laws, but it was locked. Any insight on how we can go about working on this article? Marc Thomas 13:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marctho (talk • contribs)

Richal13 (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello From The Pols 120 Class at Lansing Community College Caseydud (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Slocumm1 (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Will edits be deleted on Wikipedia if the information is already given in Ballotpedia? Richal13 (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mike,

Just wanted to thank you for being the online ambassador for the class. Just wanted to warn you that Anna & I just went to the class today, so the questions will start fairly soon. In terms of work load, for the 1st minor project all the students should be messaging the three of us, and will be starting to make small edits relatively soon. Their main project will be the classic start improving an article/start a new article, which I suspect will be due near the end of the semester. Beyond that thanks again for volunteering your time, and I hope this will be a great semester.

Chris/Epistemophiliac (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Mike,

Thanks for the note, the students as you may have noticed should be getting in touch with you, if there is anything you need from our standpoint just ask.

Chris/Epistemophiliac (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mike,

Just checking in again, to see if the students are checking in / see if there was anything on the in person side we needed to do. Epistemophiliac (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Mike,

Most of the students have listed their primary article on the class page (the Presidency article is the most active right now, and I did a little cleanup last night) - otherwise, a few have been politely suggested they change their article to something a little less covered/controversial, but we will see if they heed the warning. Beyond that, according to their syllabus their next assignment for Wikipedia is due later this month... and as they are primarily 1st/2nd semester college students, I suspect the class will be relatively quite till a few days before the next part is due. Epistemophiliac (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Ambassadors!

I wanted to give you one last update on where we are this term, before my role as Online Facilitator wraps up at the end of this week. Already, there are over 800 students in U.S. classes who have signed up on course pages this term. About 40 classes are active, and we're expecting that many more again once all the classes are up and running.

On a personal note, it's been a huge honor to work with so many great Wikipedians over the last 15 months. Thanks so much to everyone who jumped in and decided to give the ambassador concept a try, and double thanks those of you who were involved early on. Your ideas and insights and enthusiasm have been the foundation of the program, and they will be the keys the future of the program.

Still waiting to get involved with a class this term, or ready to take on more? We have seven classes that are already active and need OA support, and eleven more that have course pages started but don't have active students yet. Please consider joining one or more of these pods!

Active courses that really need Online Ambassadors:

• Sociology of Poverty
• Architectural Design
• Introduction to Educational Psychology
• Intro to Mass Communication
• Psychology Seminar
• Theories of the State
• Advanced Media Studies

Courses that may be active soon that need Online Ambassadors:

• Housing and Social Policy
• Anthropology, Wikipedia, and the Media
• History & Systems
• Horror Cinema
• Digital Media... just bits in a box
• Composition I
• Telecommunications Management
• Training Systems
• Stigma: Culture, Deviance, Identity
• Art and Terrorism
• Political Violence and Insurgency

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you notice that that image does not actually fit the description given ("a rugged hero, a desperate heroine in ... a dangerous state of déshabillé and a hideous alien menace")? The bear man and the man man appear to be having some kind of dispute, but the bear man is not a bug-eyed monster or little green man or crawling alien horror of the usual type. The woman has a costume which is skimpy in some places, but it is not disheveled -- and the woman appears to be surprised and concerned, but is not in any visible distress... AnonMoos (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That cover was meant to illustrate "gravity-defying women's costume"; there's commentary in one of the supporting sources about how fourteen-year-old boys would have stared at that cover and wondered what mysterious force was keeping the right breast covered. I can't put my hands on the particular source right now -- I thought it was Harry Harrison's Great Balls of Fire, but I can't see it on a quick scan. If you think it needs the citation I'll see if I can find it again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No particular action is required, but I thought it was interesting that while File:Startling Stories 1950 Jul cover.jpg is a somewhat typical pulp-genre cover of its era, it actually does NOT fulfill the particular sterotypes mentioned in the quote you included in the template. You can see the book "Frank Kelly Freas: As he Sees It" (ISBN 1-85585-848-7) p. 67 for some discussion of the classic formula (and why Freas wasn't too enamored of the unmodified and unvaried classic formula). AnonMoos (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That's true; I could change the template, I suppose. The caption in the article includes the "gravity-defying" comment; that's why I wanted to use that cover. I don't have the Freas book; perhaps I should get it for the sf history articles I write. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

See File:An Earth Man on Venus 78545.JPG for one that comes much closer to fulfilling all the old clichéd stereotypes... AnonMoos (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a beautiful example. It could be used in an article such as History of science fiction art, if that ever gets written. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

As you took part in the first FAC for this article, I though you might be interested in participating in the current FAC for Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009. Regards, Harrias ^talk 20:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mike, Just a heads up that my students will (or should) be starting to work on their articles right about now. Thanks again for your help with this! Sgelbman (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding a signature so that this will archive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - keep me in the loop on what happens. As for now I will plead a "give the student a shot first" on the AfD. Epistemophiliac (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Mind chiming in on the AfD? I shot the professor an extra email hoping to grab his attention, but I think we can at least give the students a chance at making the page survive - but it isn't going to be easy with the Ambassador program on the whole taking heat. Epistemophiliac (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I would lean towards the hack away at bad materials, make a it a stub - and let the students know what you did and why (kinda annoys me they haven't done a lot sense this started, but I do know there was a big football game yesterday and the start of mid-terms soon, so combine with being a freshmen class it's bound to happen on occasion. Epistemophiliac (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Done; I left a note at the AfD too. Yes, the students aren't very engaged, but that's going to happen with a lot of these courses. Not many will get bitten by the Wikipedia editing bug. I think that's all the more reason to treat these articles as we would any other written by a new editor -- clean it up fairly quickly. I don't mean adding content as much as doing what I did -- getting rid of stuff that shouldn't be in an article, and adding a minimum amount to show what should. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey there, its been awhile since we last talked and since you are really good at making articles get a FA status, I was wondering if you can give me some helpful tips on an article that I want to nominate? Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 18:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, happy to help. My time is a bit limited at the moment, but let me know which article, and what level of detail you'd like, and I'll see what I can do. I might not be quick, but I'll try. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Why so reluctant to just wave your magic wand? Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

@Mike, thanks for taking your time at giving me some helpful tips. I have been working on Dreaming of You (album) and would like to know if there are any outstanding problems and if so, how can I correct/improve on those errors? @Malleus, were you replying to Mike? Thanks, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 05:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look in the next couple of days. Malleus, I would, of course, but I lost it -- I think it was around the time I stopped beating my wife. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thanks again so much. Really appreciated, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 13:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

hydrox (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I had not seen the FAC - thanks. I have not got time to read the whole article now, but I am surpised to see there still is no critical reception section, which was one of my concerns before. I will try to read it tomorrow and comment on the FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mike, do you have access to the DNB? We need some basic biographical information on Peter Percival (a 19th c. missionary in Tamil India) and whatever else we can find. Your help would be greatly appreciated. PS Did I tell you I'm getting to teach an OE poetry class next semester? Have you signed up yet? ;) Drmies (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't, but Ealdgyth does; I'll leave her a note. I'd love to sign up but I think I'm missing a couple of prereqs .... Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No Peter Percival in the ODNB. Sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

NPP Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Tatompki (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If there are any gaps in my answer, or any of your questions that I have not adequately addressed, don't hesitate to let me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

OMG. I just took a quick look at stuff about the India project and... Again, OMG. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed. What a mess. I've been reading the thread on Sandy's talk page and will try to comment there again soon but have been quite busy in real life. I think there needs to be some kind of centrally located on-wiki thread that will provide a forum for discussing the negative impacts of school projects but also allow communication about the positive effects. Those who, like Sandy, only run into a couple of poorly written efforts that don't benefit the encyclopedia are unlikely to see much value in the overall USEP effort. I found myself somewhat discouraged a while back when working with students who were far less fun to work with than your exemplary first class; I felt better after I was reminded that I was only seeing a few data points, and that the overall impact of the project has been fairly clearly positive. I almost think a subpage of the village pump might be a good idea, particularly if there are going to be hundreds of these classes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Are the people who run the Outreach projects amenable? It seems that one of the problems is that they have only been getting involved at the very beginning (promotion) and the very end (either when things have degenerated or to evaluate once its all over). Look at the on-Wiki contributions of some of these people, for instance: though there are exception, they tend to be very light. --jbmurray (talk • contribs)

Hi there. Seen your work around the FAC page. I was wondering if you could please take a quick look at an article I've been working on. It failed FAC months ago, based on poor prose, and I've been working on it since. If you're too busy, then that's fine. There's absolutely no rush. The article is pretty long, so I'd be satisfied if you're able to review only one section (even a paragraph). Thanks in advance.

PS: I know beggars aren't choosers, but "writing and recording" has been the most problematic section (intro, plus the couple sections before that have been reviewed to death). Orane (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take a look, but I'm busier than usual at the moment and am unlikely to get to it at least until this weekend, and possibly not for a week or two after that. If that's OK, let me know and I'll put it on my list. I recall seeing it at FAC. Incidentally, another editor asked me to take a look at an album article recently; the article was Dreaming of You (album), and it needed prose improvements too. They are now getting a pretty thorough copyedit from Baffle gab1978. You might take a look at the work being done there, and see if you like it; if so you might request help from that editor -- they might be faster than I am. Let me know -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine. Take your time. The album is still charting in the top 5 in many countries, so I'm not rushing at all to bring it to FAC until maybe the end of the year, if not later. Plus, I want to make sure that it is absolutely ready before I re-nominate it. You can add it to your list if you want, and I'll poke the editor you suggested. Thanks. Orane (talk) 06:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I am glad to see the students being involved. I think that a lot of the state party articles are pretty thin on material (compared, e.g., to articles about Canadian provincial political parties), so I am glad that there is an organized effort to improve them. I am trying to keep in mind that these students are probably new to Wikipedia, so I am trying to be extra patient. So far, I think they are responding well. The one exception is the person editing Kentucky Democratic Party, who does not seem to be getting into the spirit of things here in Wikipedia. You can take a look at the hisory of edits to see what I mean. Some additional guidance (from an ambassador) might be useful here. And, of course, monitoring other articles. Having corrections being done by more than just one editor would help convey the idea of group norms being enforced, rather than those of just one persnickety editor. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 22:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mike,

Well, on your suggestion I took a look at the USEP page, and I decided to chime in. It's quite obvious, just like it was on the IEP, that the paid organisers are not in the slightest concerned about the impact the expansions programmes are having and will increasingly have on NPP, our first and major firewall against all unwatented, or poorly created pages. I thought I had delivered a clear message there, but it was given less than a cursory glance, and I get patronised (as one of the first OAs ever) as if I don't know what the project is all about. 19,195 bytes wasted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

PS: I notice also to my chagrin, that Piotrus "...unlike in traditional common sense collaborative projects, in their basic form the wikis provide no gate-keeping function to control what is being published. Wikipedias allow all of their editors to vote and voice their opinions, and empower them to change the content of articles and organizational policies to an extent unthinkable in traditional organizations." (Konieczny 2009, 212), doesn't mention New Page Patrol at all in his long list of Wikipedia maintenenace and control groups, although it's the major firewall against unwanted content. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The point about CAs not requiring that much prior experience is probably at least half true. What the students need mostly at the initial stages is handholding and demonstrations. They don't edit under the eyes of the CAs, so a CA with vast knowledge of Wikipedia policy is unlikely to be able to help much more than an inexperienced CA. As I understand it the sequence is something like this: CA goes in for one or more classes and does an onscreen demo of some Wikipedia editing. They put up a few slides about policy (copyvio, notability, verification, etc.) and answer questions. They are available for workshops showing students how to set up sandboxes. They may come back and talk to the class multiple times, and the students are free to contact them for help. Then the students go off and work on their articles without notifying the CAs or anyone else. That's when the new material is created, and there's really not much more the CAs can do without forcing the students to edit in front of them.

However, to me that just means that more attention needs to be paid to the students' first edits by the next line of defense, the OAs and NPP. I don't think it's fair to NPP or the community in general to institute a process that will lead to significant extra work for areas of the community that did not sign up for this. On the other hand, a professor can run their class on Wikipedia without any reference to USEP or any need for permission, so the community has to be prepared for that. To date, I'd guess most classes have been outside the USEP, not inside.

My main disagreement with LiAnna is with this comment: "we have two possibilities: either we can turn away people who want to contribute to Wikipedia or we can figure out a way to support more classes on-wiki". I think this is a false dichotomy; I would say we can only provide good support for a limited number of classes, and we should figure out how to maximize that number and then work out what to do with the remaining classes we can't support well. We should not provide bad support for a hundred classes just because there are a hundred classes to support. I am concerned not enough of the community is weighing in -- this is going to have a big impact on editors and I would like more awareness of that and engagement by the community with the WMF to shape the programme. I'll post something over there today, but I was hoping others would chip in so that I don't appear to be the only person making these points. If you follow the links in my reply to Annie, you'll see that SandyGeorgia and Ground Zero have been been dealing with the impact of these classes, and they are surely not the only ones. The programme needs to optimize multiple things at the same time, and I would like the WMF to get input from some of these sources. Any ideas you have on how to expand awareness of this discussion would be great -- I've posted to the Village Pump for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not involved in the planning of WMF project, I'm but a simple foreman (and that's really no big deal) on the volunteer factory floor. As in any corporate situation, the bosses don't listen to the workers and they never got their hands dirty on on a lathe or a turret drill. They only cursorily scan our posts before they launch once more into their TLDR speeches on talk pages about how good they are doing their job, and in the security of the knowledge that they have thousands of minions to clear up the mess when they screw up. The community weighed in en masse when the IEP went disastrously wrong, and what did we get? Lots of long self-congratulatory speeches from the organisers again with empty effusive remerciements. No wonder that the community is now playing hard-to-get. FWIW, I have spent hours on Skype with the top of the staff, and if they are not aware of the implications of their education programmes by now, they never will be. They are all enjoying flying around the country and hobnobbing with profs and deans, while we sit at home and burn the midnight oil over a computer, an overflowing ashtray, a cup of cold coffee and a delete button. They are looking right down the wrong end of the telescope - give us the tools we've been begging for and a decent landing page for new editors, and we'll be as happy as kids at Christmas. Take a very good look at this graph, you 'll see how sleeves were rolled up during the IEP crisis, and now that it's (more or less) over, the backlog is creeping up again - BTW, the vertical column is 1,000s. try to get the WMF to understand those kind of stats rather than allow them boast about the numbers of professors they have recruited for their programmes. Then ask the organisers what they think of their balancing act when they weigh the average of seven patrollers on line at any one time to cope with ana average of one new article being dumped on the doorstep every fifteen seconds round the clock ,against the number of CAs and OAs. What needs to be said has been said here, and here, and here; they've seen it all, but they've buried their heads in the sand, and swept the warnings under the carpet. The two people you really need to talk to now are Mdennis aka Moonriddengirl, staff/commnity liaison gofer and Wikipedia copyvio guru, and Voceditenore our opera specialst, who like me, has worked her knuckles to the bone and shouted herself hoarse. They are people you can talk to, but even they are not guaranteed more success at getting their message across than I did. The highfalutin mantras about 'We must get more editors' has more collateral damage than it's probably worth - here we are with the 4th biggest web site in the world, with initiatives like these swallowing up the donator's dough, while the bosses at Google are billionaires and won't allow our CorenBot to sneak around their corridors unless we cross thier palms with silver! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of Astonishing Stories know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 13, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 13, 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:

Astonishing Stories was an American pulp science fiction magazine, published by Popular Publications between 1940 and 1943. The magazine's first editor was Frederik Pohl, who also edited a companion publication, Super Science Stories. The budget for Astonishing was very low, which made it difficult to acquire good fiction, but through his membership of the Futurians, a group of young science fiction fans and aspiring writers, Pohl was able to find material to fill the early issues. The magazine was successful, and Pohl was able to increase his pay rates slightly within a year. He managed to obtain stories by writers who subsequently became very well known, such as Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein. After Pohl entered the army in early 1943, wartime paper shortages led Popular to cease publication of Astonishing. The final issue was dated April of that year. The magazine was never regarded as one of the leading titles of the genre, but despite the low budget it published some well-received material. Science fiction critic Peter Nicholls comments that "its stories were surprisingly good considering how little was paid for them", and this view has been echoed by other historians of the field. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mike, I've name-dropped you at WT:MILHIST#Anglo-Saxon warfare. Hope you don't mind. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Not at all; thanks for thinking of me. I'm not a real expert but I'll see what I can dig up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Having asked the organisers of education programmes several times why do not appear to address comments regarding the availabilty of community members to do any eventual cleaning up, I've been informed by the WMF that issues concerning clean-up support are not within the mandate of the organisers. In the meantime I'm scaling down my support for GEP and comments on it, and will be concentrating my efforts on endeavours to accelerate the development of the necessary tools and reform of New Page Patrol. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments you've been making there. I'll keep trying to nudge the conversation along, and will eventually get back to trying NPP but I am still ploughing through the IEP cleanup and I have some OA work to do to, so I'm fairly backed up. I think the net comments are in the direction of sensible changes so we might see some progress. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. However, as the organisers have expressed that it is not within their remit to take into consideration the availablity of a clean up force, it is doubtful therefore that even gentle prodding there will be effective, and the WMF is polar on these issues. A posting on another IEP page today by one of the organisers informs that future programs will involve more communication with community, but again in which manner the community will be involved was not mentioned. There has been no movement on the development (at least not on discussions) on the suggested reforms of the NPP system for nearly two months. As I am involved in those discussions, there is little benefit in me repeating there that these solutions should be developed in parallel with the move forward in the expansion of these education programmes, but I do feel that if others could chime in, a greater voice may have more impact. I am relieved to see however, that a possiblity to put back the extension of the IEP until the spring is under discussion. With more concentration on the tools and improved performance of the patrollers, we might be ready for it by then. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that the WMF's policy appears to be to chase away established editors, especially male editors, so as to achieve that magical 50% gender balance, nothing will be different next time around. Malleus Fatuorum 03:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've never really had any exposure to WMF staff before this summer, and I'm still thinking about the relationship between their role and the editing community. I think that's a difficult balancing act. I do think that the IEP was a disaster, and the USEP is not being run as well as it could be run. My main goal at WT:USEP has not been to push my own opinions, though I've certainly done that; it's been to try to get a community discussion going which would generate useful and credible input to the WMF planning process. I think that includes Kudpung's concerns about NPP (though I'm not knowledgeable about the tools he mentions, I understand the need for them). I think Sandy's recent post at that page is exactly what the USEP organizers need to hear -- I don't entirely agree with Sandy, as it happens, but an initiative that has the sort of effect on content editors that the USEP has had on Sandy clearly needs to have a planning process with a visible presence on-wiki. I'm hopeful that we're moving in that direction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully we are. I've been involved in a much smaller scale project, and it's very evident that new editors need a lot of help. So I find Kudpung's exhorations to be little more than empty rhetoric. Wikipedia is bleeding contributors and reviewers. Malleus Fatuorum 06:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The IEP is slated to return in June after a detailed analysis of what went wrong. (That what we were told tonight at the steering committee meeting.) --Guerillero | My Talk 06:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

-- Signing so this will archive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I wonder if it would be worth mentioning the discussion to each of the OA's via their talk pages (apart from the three or four who have already commented). As you probably saw there, I have a feeling that the current number of actively engaged OAs has been over-estimated. It might bring some of them out of the woodwork one way or another. Voceditenore (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I might be able to do a bit of this tonight but if you'd like to get started, please go ahead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I managed to do some, starting at the top of the list, and did all through User:Sonia. I probably won't be able to much more today. Note that User:Nvvchar has retired from WP. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There is of course no mention of any support that may/will be needed from the regular clean-up corps. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good point. I think WT:USEP is tending in a good direction now, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• There are a few Education Program-related articles listed at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Educational assignments needing timely reviews. If you have the time, would you be able to take one? maclean (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Update I finished the list, even did the "Ambassadors-in-training" ;-) I've found quite a few OAs who appear to be retired or semi-retired from WP, but notified the semi-retired ones anyway. I'll leave a few more comments/suggestions at the discussion today, but then I'll be travelling over the next week or so and pretty much offline. Good luck with the discussion. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings. I would like to share some thoughts (solutions) regarding my experience with Wikipedia Education Projects. I did not want to intrude with such a large post, if you feel this is not the place, nor are you the person. It will not be banter and posturing, just a summation of challenges and solutions specific to my AP Biology class.--JimmyButler (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely; I'm very interested. I try not to post at all during 9-5 eastern time, but am usually fairly responsive outside those hours. Please go ahead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings. I was reading the concerns posted on the Wikipedia talk:United States Education Program; if I might share my attempt at solutions to these challenges used at Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2011.

My first year, the grades and thus the goal of the students were to push articles to GA or FA status. Although we meet with moderate success, I can see why such a strategy would overwhelm the system; especially if students feel compelled to attempt GA, even if the product clearly falls short. They hope that an editor (mentor) could push /pull them (or without them) to a successful outcome.

The students were adopted by a specific mentor. A pointless act, in the end students and mentors naturally gravitated toward each other, dependent upon the topic and who was actively monitoring that page. That was the only year the relationship between mentor and mentee was officially recognized.

My second attempt, I opted to combine the students into groups, thus reducing the number of articles to monitor. I did this for my own sanity, at this point being unaware that we were taxing the Wikipedia system. This was an epic fail – conflict between groups make this a non-viable option from a grading standpoint. Note, with the new strategy, mentors were not monitoring students, they were monitoring the article. Thus, large classes may not be as traumatic as advertised, if the instructor limits the number of articles the class edits. I suspect few are doing a 1:1, one student to one article. The challenge for grouping is at the teacher end – grading.

On the third attempt, I shifted from making GA / FA the goal to grading the student‘s effort.; this allowed for multiple students focusing on a single article. I developed a rubric that measures contributions. The class selected only two articles, the students were graded on their portfolio documenting their contributions. (If you are interested, the rubric is currently being revised in my sandbox. Neither article was nominated for GA/FA; it was a challenge keeping students productive, with no specific goal. The interaction with the community was limited to a few editors. I suspect the mentors prefer not to crowd around a single article. In the absence of the social interactions, the students lost interest. Because the students felt no since of “ownership”, none felt compelled to push for GA/FA.

This year, I’ve created a hybrid of sorts; keeping the rubric, and forming groups of four that actively edit any of four different articles. At some point we will shift our focus to one of these four articles and that group will attempt to push it to FA status. In my case that translates to four groups composed of four students; thus we may be submitting four articles to FAC. Once I sensed the concerns over shirking grading responsibilities raised on the Project’s talk page and the resentment such an approach might generate among mentors; I added one additional component, a Teacher Review. I am thinking this might accomplish several things. First, it would serve to undo any gross damage that students may have introduced to the article. Second, it would reduce the number of extremely bad articles that may be taxing the GA/FA process. Third, it provides evidence of commitment by the instructor to the project, which at the least should reduce resentment among mentors who are feeling exploited. I would think, this step would force instructors to limit the number of articles being actively edited – thus the specter of 100’s of students from a single class rampaging through Wikipedia unattended would never materialize.

My challenge has been getting the students to engage in the process. In a class of 20, typically 4 or five actively edit. The mentors lose interest and fade away. The student fails. However, there is no impact to the articles on Wikipedia good or bad. My point here, even in large classes, a significant number will be non-factors, a problem for the teacher, but not for the Wikipedia Project.

There is so much more to add; four years of effort have been fraught with successes and frustrations. Make use of what is of value and discard the rest as ramblings of a mad-man. Cheers.--JimmyButler (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this; I have heard good things of your classes over the years, and am very interested to learn more. I don't have any answers for you; in fact I think it's much more likely that you have answers for me, since you're a teacher who's been working with Wikipedia in the classroom for years, and I have much more limited experience. I do have a couple of observations and questions, though.

• I agree with you that requiring FA or GA is a mistake; it sounds as though you found that mentors and helpful editors generally felt obliged to help the students out, and even though the resulting articles are a real benefit to Wikipedia that's not a scalable process. Have you considered doing what jbmurray did, and making FA optional but letting the class know that it would guarantee an A+ on the final paper, no questions asked? I believe he set things up so that you could get an A+ without an FA, so it was up to the students if they wanted to do the work. Several did.
  • At the high school level; parents are heavily involved in grades. Parents were screaming over the inequities of having either strongly supportive or completely absent mentors and its effects on student performance and reaching a set goal. Shifting to the portfolio completely eliminated that concern. I wonder if jbmurray encountered problems with the mentors being overwhelmingly responsible for the FA, resulting in an A for students who did little? Also, mentors are not the only ones that contribute when the article reaches that stage of development. It was not uncommon for several editors to become involve, making improvements and addressing concerns before the student had the opportunity. A complaint or excuse; "My article got taken over". If an article makes GA, the rubric I use virtually guarantees an 'A' if the students are reasonably responsible for the success. The push to FA is a matter of personal success and pride - in my class FA is equivalent to the Nobel Prize and we celebrate appropriately.--JimmyButler (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

    I hadn't thought about the parent factor; that's a good point. I can see that the portfolio solves the problem. It sounds like you make the students assemble the portfolio and then you just validate it -- is that right? So the students have to know how to use diffs and so forth? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• How much is your increasing knowledge of Wikipedia (both the markup language and the policies) helping you? Does it mean you need less from the mentors?
  • I try to push the students in seeking assistance from each other and any resource on Wikipedia - other than me. Not to drain the system, rather to help them develop the art of collaboration. The less involved I am, the greater the sense of accomplishment and the more they become adept at handling obstacles. I provide them with the links to the multitude of services on Wikipedia that answer the questions that typically arise. I do not teach the technical aspects of Wikipedia. When such issues come up we seek to resolve them as a class. I do convey to them the standards for any research paper; something that should be know by anyone requiring their class to do "research". This is not a Wikipedia skill; rather something that every teacher should be competent.

    I suspect, no one begins their Wikipedia experience with a "training session". There is a period in which we bumble about. However, I have found the learning curve to be exponential, very little time between complete incompetence to competent contributors. This year, we began with a series of small challenges (mini-assignments) beginning with something as simple as correcting one spelling error. We eventually moved to adding one reference. Much was learned about formatting and code, by expanding their user page. Baby-steps reduce the need for major mentor intervention. That said; someone in the room has to grasp the big picture and be prepared to intervene if problems escalate.--JimmyButler (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

    I like the idea of not going on about technical details; I suspect they are deeply offputting to new editors. What about basic information on approach, though -- I'm thinking mainly of the need to cite sources, and the difference between a reliable and unreliable source. I would assume you give them some initial information on that? I would think neutrality is much less relevant in the topics I gather your classes work on, though for some topics it would be important to stress that too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• I was interested to read that assigning specific mentors to students failed. The OA system in the USEP is the parallel to the mentors in your project. The OA role has been evolving as we've tried different approaches. Assigning one OA to three or four students didn't work at all well; the students were often barely active, so motivated helpers were left with nothing to do. Assigning one OA to a class of 50 students also doesn't work well -- there are far too many edits to monitor and you don't get to know any of the students. I like your idea of just letting the students interact with the existing editors at the articles that are out there, since that's how any other editor has to do it. Still, it sounds like you hope for a little more than simple editing interaction between students and mentors, judging by your notes above and the project page. If you had fifty willing OAs to assign to some college classes, how would you do it?
  • the students were often barely active, so motivated helpers were left with nothing to do. I am relieved to here this; I thought it was just a problem at the high school level. The watchdogs of the pages, often adapted quite nicely to the role of mentor; I found editors to be generally accommodating. Of course we stay away from certain topics. Creationism, Evolution, Abortion are not an option for us. We seek out the stubs, thus editors within field are delighted to see effort on these unnoticed gems. As such people are more patient and pleasant. There are likely many reasons people fall into the role and are willing to guide the students with any problem. In fact, the majority of those that assist me, simply follow us out of interest, not because they are part of a program. To answer the question, I think you would need flexibility. Perhaps even forgetting mentoring students, rather monitoring articles. As the students engage, shift your resources to the articles that are active and lack sufficient interaction between the students and the "ordinary" editors that typically monitor such pages. Perhaps one or two OA's could coordinate such movements as activity increases or wanes on the various articles. Pairing with individuals or even groups guarantees the problem that I quoted you on in the opening. Think number of articles / not number of students. You also want to "train" an OA on the art of diffusing conflict; not all editors are accommodating, occasionally they resent intrusion into their subject as a teaching tool. So much to say here... sorry I wasn't brief.--JimmyButler (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

    No worries about briefness; this is interesting and very helpful -- thanks for taking the time to put down the details. Let me give you a current example: I'm an OA for this class, which has about 70 students. Each is (supposed to be) editing a different article, mostly articles about state political parties, such as Colorado Republican Party. Since in this case it's a one-to-one relationship between students and articles, there's really no difference between assigning mentors to students or to articles. What's happened so far is that there is one editor (Ground Zero -- poor bastard) who had all these already watchlisted, and who has been engaging with the students to the extent he can. I've chipped in a little, but frankly he's faster than me. I don't think this is ideal, because it's not fair to Ground Zero, but I'm not sure what to do about it. He's been mostly good natured about it, and I'm glad that that echoes your experience with not having assigned mentors, but there have been a couple of cases where the students needed help, and I suspect there are more cases where I could intervene if I had the time and energy to review fifty sets of contrib histories every day. I'm also somewhat hampered by not being very familiar with the course. Anyway, I don't have a specific question for you, but this is, I think, a fairly typical current situation in the USEP, and I feel that the result is the students are simply not getting as much support from the OAs as I would like to see. I've been arguing that that's a bad thing, but you have me wondering if in fact that's just the way the classes need to run. However, I also wonder if the difference is that you have a lot of Wikipedia experience by now -- these instructors are generally much less knowledgeable, and can't fill the role you mentioned above, of having "someone in the room who grasps the big picture". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Why was the second year an epic fail? Because you couldn't grade the individual coursework accurately? Or did the articles not get improved? What was the nature of the conflict between the groups?
  • This is problem was strictly on my side. It goes back to parents. Accusations of sandbagging, excuses of no help from others, parent's blaming the kids short-comings on the actions of others in the group, etc. Students getting good grades by riding the coat-tails of others. Basically the same concerns regarding responsibility and credit, except not over mentor - student, rather the inter-action of class-mates. They hated each other by the end of the term. There were no successes, procrastination was epidemic... the sense that it's ok - no one else did anything either. The portfolio has worked out brilliantly in that regard. I can have group effort; and still assign an individual grade. You should be the fly on the wall, when I interview each student separately and analyze their portfolio. "How many points for one spelling correction and one reference"... 2 perhaps. They cry; yet, no one (not even parents) have challenged the grade.--JimmyButler (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

    I think this is a brilliant solution, but as I said above I am curious about the detailed mechanics of how they present their portfolios. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think your comments on the third year are very interesting: "it was a challenge keeping students productive, with no specific goal". You might consider using the quantitative metric that the PPI used; you can see the report here; you may also be interested in the definition of the metric and here is an example assessment -- we did these before and after on a large sample of the edited articles. If you were to use a metric like this, could you base the grade on it? Do you think that could be an approach we recommend at the university level?

I will try to keep an eye on the articles that your group is working on. I see Malleus in the watchlist there; as I'm sure you know by now he's a very good editor; he has a good eye for unclear prose and is a fine copyeditor. If you are attracting editors of that quality you're doing fine. That "linked watchlist" gadget is neat, by the way; I didn't know about that, and will probably use it myself.

• I will review your resources and respond as time permits. I agree, if we were doing a horrid job, Malleus would have eaten us up and spit us out. I've mentioned "global communication" as a 21st century skill. His interaction with my students is an exceptional example. Especially since he is British. They have such an ego-centric view and barely conceive of a world beyond our little back-water community. At Croatan, a guy across the Atlantic is a common topic at the student lunch table. If the mentor's could see the excitment they bring to the project, recruitment and retention would not be a problem.

  That is extremely cool. Does Malleus know he's a hot topic in a North Carolina lunchroom? Not sure if he has my talk page on his watchlist, but if he does: Malleus, I'm impressed. Jimmy, I think you're right: it should be very motivating for most editors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

  I didn't know that, no, but I do now, as your page is on my watchlist. JimmyButler is of course quite right. If I'd thought he was doing a horrid job I would indeed have chewed them all up and spat them out, but I think he's doing a great job, and so are those of his students I've come across. I've had no problems with any of them, which is a damn sight more than I can say about the mass of Wikipedia editors. It's my view that any reasonably committed group of high-school students could achieve GA without breaking sweat, and learn much about research and presentation of results in the process. FA is a much bigger fish though, and I kind of wonder whether it's worth it for the students, especially if they get a proper GA review. I've written many articles myself that I doubt I will ever advance to FA. But I guess the best students might want to challenge themselves though. Malleus Fatuorum 04:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

  At one point I would have agreed that GA should be in reach for a reasonably committed group of students, though it would depend on the topic, of course (e.g. getting mammal to GA); however, I've run into such a wide range of competence from the students I've interacted with that I'm not sure it's true. Perhaps it's true when there's an knowledgeable and experienced instructor like Jimmy running the class. Incidentally, do you have anything to add to Jimmy's comments? You've quite a bit of experience with his class too. I'm trying to use this as input to WT:USEP; I know you've already commented there, so you are aware that the design of the program is far from ideal, and the more we can understand why Jimmy's program works well the better the input to the USEP can be. Actually, you haven't said much over there, but one thing you did say that I noticed was that the WMF should be approaching people like Jimmy. I agree. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

  I haven't really taken much notice of the USEP programme, but my view is that floppy topics such as positive psychology, for instance, need a lot more hand holding than those on the more conventional sciences like biology. And I say that as someone with a psychology degree myself. In my own limited experience of these wikiprojects I do somewhat take SandyG's point about scalability; I know that if I were a student working on an article I'd want feedback pretty quickly; I'm pumped up so why aren't you kind of thing. So my only suggestion is that I send you some of my DNA for the WMF to clone, during which process you may feel it prudent to remove my incivility gene. Malleus Fatuorum 04:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

  I like the idea of an army of your clones helping out on Wikipedia. Perhaps they could all support you at your next RfA? Or would they not all agree with you? And what would we call them? Gladius Fatuorum, Hasta Fatuorum, and so on? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for asking more questions instead of giving answers, but I will try to be more helpful if you do have specific questions. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added my responses. I tried (and failed) to brief. I'll stop here before I start filling the page with all the positives to be gained from this type of Project. As we say Down East, "No need to preach to the choir". I will investigate the supplied links. Thank you for this opportunity to reflect. --JimmyButler (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for the input. There are very few people on Wikipedia with enough experience to do more than theorize over how to improve the USEP, and your experience should be very helpful to us. And incidentally, the USEP is supposed to be a resource for teachers -- is there anything that you would want such a project to provide as a resource to you, that you don't have now? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

By "linked watchlist" do you mean this? And even if you don't, how did you do that? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant; I haven't seen it before, but it looks like you can put any Wikipedia page in as the last part of the page name, and it will give you a recent changes list for every page linked from that page. For example, this will give you every change to a page for which there is a link here on this page. Any teacher with a course page that contains all the article links (and perhaps all the student talk links to, though that could be a separate page perhaps) can get access to this by putting the course page in as a link. I tried it here for a real current course page and it looks useful; I'll mention it to that instructor. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That's kinda cool. Thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

In response to the query, How much preparation are students given regarding research paper fundamentals? I think it would be catastrophic not to have covered issues such as credible references, when and where to cite, and concepts such as paraphrasing and plagiarism at the very least. This is true, at the high school level; although, I suspect college professors assume students already know these things. The common thread on which all seem to agree, the teacher has an important role to play if such projects are to be successful. A great amount of class time which goes undocumented on talk pages, is dedicated to this project. Each season seems to require more time, as each season seems to generate new concerns to which I hope to avoid. I over-looked the support page outlining the teacher's responsibilities for such projects with suggestions that might help them establish a functional relationship with those mentoring the students. I instead monitored and emulated jbmurray's efforts, which seems to suffer many of the same concerns (student apathy, less than stellar contributions, and frustrated mentors) that are being addressed here. No insult intended. Faced with concrete guidelines, the professors/teachers may be better equipped to decide whether they have the time to monitors large classes effectively. After four seasons, I'm still uncertain as to what is an equitable balance between my role and that of the mentor in guiding student progress. I have instituted two policies, "Teacher Review" and "Mistakes I have Made (Where students keep a running list of errors brought to their attention via c/e). With these steps, anything over 4 articles (not students), that are being aggressively edited, seems to be the tipping point. Unfortunately, I work two jobs, I suspect others would have more time to spare. I've exceeded a manageable number this semester; thus, I'll depart to focus on student efforts. Thank you for allowing my the opportunity to reflect on our current progress and will continue to contemplate the over arching theme; Can Wikipedia serve as both a Teaching Tool and a credible Encyclopedia? --JimmyButler (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. My name is Mitchell Larkins and I've been assigned the Georgia Republican Party Wikipedia page as my class assignment. I appreciate your editing, but I put a lot of time and work into paraphrasing and adding to the article. I'd appreciate improvements, not removal of information like massive paragraphs. It's my responsibility to fill the page, and I believe the information was accurate and well paraphrased. If it needs to be sourced better, by all means, please help me. I just ask that you help me work on this page, not cause destruction to everything I've done. MitchellLarkins (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Mitchell LarkinsMitchellLarkins (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Great! I've seen wikipedia pages as references before on other wikipedia pages when doing my research which is why I used such. If it's not permitted, I'd have to go through that wikipedia page and find all the sources for individual paragraphs. But if I remove anymore information from my page, I will surely get a failing grade. I'm having trouble putting the source down, and then it repeating over and over again for the same material. I removed the wikipedia page source and added a different source that works, but I need assistance in formatting it correctly. It doesn't look correct but I'm not sure how to do it. MitchellLarkins (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Mitchell LarkinsMitchellLarkins (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Snipped from: Guide to Resource Materials for Science Fiction and Fantasy Teachers. Author(s): Marshall B. Tymn. Reviewed work(s): Source: The English Journal, Vol. 68, No. 1 (Jan., 1979), pp. 68-74. On page 72 (quote):

Magazine Surveys and Histories. Carter, Paul A. The Creation of Tomorrow: Fifty Years of Magazine Science Fiction. New York: Columbia University Press, 1977. The first book-length history of the SF magazine. Carter arranges his chapters thematically, covering subjects like space travel, time machines, evolution and regression of species, utopias, ecology, fantasy, and others. Then he shows how these various themes have evolved through the decades, from the days of Amazing Stories to the short-lived British magazine, New Worlds. Carter furnishes a mass of information and manages to touch on hundreds of stories and to quote scores of practitioners and critics. A bibliographical chapter tells where some of the old magazines can be found and lists recent book collections of the old pulp fiction. Includes many line cuts of classic drawings from the magazines.

NotSixBodies (talk) 08:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I'd be happy to help you with finding sources for the New Worlds (magazine). I have access to JSTOR (in addition to many other academic databases), and a university library. Perhaps post a list of what you need on the talk page and I'll start searching? Sasata (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be great. Are you interested in conominating, by any chance? For the articles I write, I don't usually run into the need to review academic literature, particularly on literary criticism (which can be remarkably poor in signal to noise ratio), and I'm not confident of doing a reliable survey of the material. I've made a similar comment at my original post at WT:FAC, and would love to get help in this area -- if you'd like to conom and would be willing to look through some of the literature that would be great. If not, I completely understand and would still be very grateful just to get access to the articles themselves. Let me know, and either way I'll post some search terms on the article talk page. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... I shouldn't commit myself without knowing exactly what I'd be getting into—haven't touched literary criticism since English 101. I'm sure Nikkimaria would be a better bet :) Sasata (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mike, were you thinking we would integrate the literary criticism stuff into the current article structure, or create a dedicated section for it? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I just left a note at the article talk page about that point; I saw your edit summary. Perhaps we should continue this conversation there? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi! As you were very active in discussions about the India Education Program's Pune pilot, I wanted to draw your attention to Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Analysis, a page that documents our analysis plan for the next few months. I encourage you to join the discussion if you have any thoughts. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have a question about citations that I hope you can help with. When referencing one source multiple times, how do I avoid it showing up on the reference list multiple times as well? Thank you! SarahRW (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I don't know who to ask this, so am hoping you can point me in the right direction. My watchlist is being hit hard by new editors working on the Hemingway short story pages, and unfortunately the edits are seriously problematic. I've had to tag one page - but at this point as the only, and very overworked, Am lit/ Hemingway editor I'm watching with dismay at the potential clean-up. I realize it's end of semester and am inclined to let these go and simply revert later, but do you know how one finds the professor for a class so I can drop him/ her a line. Thanks much. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mike, sorry to bother you again. I'm quite frankly up to my head with Hemingway stuff at the moment, dealing with a lot of very unpleasant stuff on the biography, had myself taken to AN/I and had my first block a few days ago because of Hemingway, and I realize that I'm not the best person to be dealing with this situation at Cat in the Rain. It's nice that the students' professors like Indian Camp which I wrote exactly for such a reason (there is method to my madness sometimes), but not so nice to see chunks of it being copied from one page to the next. I'm finding myself getting a little testy and I know that you're very calm so can you keep an eye on Cat in the Rain for me. Also if you should happen to get the name of the professor, would you mind either posting or sending it me via email. I'd like to be in touch with him/her. Thanks so much. And, no btw - this has absolutely nothing to do with "owning" articles - I find myself being very defensive these days, so I need to log out. I've decided to unwatch the page, and am going on a break. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

But just in case you missed it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist at the moment because I recently left a message there, but I normally don't watch it, so thanks for the heads up. I completely agree with your comment (both "ugh" and "editcountitis"). I also noticed the reference above it to Wikipedia:School and university projects. I really should mention both of these in my sandbox op ed. Which I've updated since you reviewed it; it now has more of a prescriptive finale. Since, as you said earlier, you're on the other team (actually you play on both teams, but whatever), any thoughts on that prescription? Is it a convincing argument? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

And it's not just the Canadians. Plus it seems that the idea is endorsed at the highest levels. Double ugh. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't be a bad idea if this were a group of knowledgeable Wikipedians, would it? It would be a sort of WikiCup. The key difference is that the WikiCup measures both quantity and quality. The PPI had a quality metric and I believe the USEP should add it back in. I think if you have both there's less chance of a negative effect from volume additions of low quality material. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. But these are new Wikipedians. Meanwhile, the WMF went to all the effort of devising a quality metric. Why on earth are they now producing a "leaderboard" that is pure quantity?

Personally, in my classes I stress: 1) regular editing (that they need to start early, and be editing every week); and 2) various forms of quality assessment, both self-generated and community processes. At no point have I ever said anything to my students about sheer quantity. Not once. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I fear I've spread the discussion all over. Frank has responded here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I understand you are our Wiki ambassador? I am having trouble with citing references for Herbert Blumer's page. I have one article that I am trying to cite multiple times (in the introduction), but each foot note is coming out as a separate citation. Any suggestions? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izbski (talk • contribs) 03:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Mike. To me the Hemingway citation issue was mainly down to bad timing. It was the holiday weekend, and stress ran high. TK and another editor got into a spat while discussing the Hemingway nav template (something to do with colors?), which led to the listing of several errors/inconsistencies on the Hemingway talk page having to do with the citation template already in use. TK had considered removing the citation template all together for some time -- since she's not partial to it -- and so she and several others (myself included) set about doing it in a sandbox, along with some massive copy-editing throughout. The article's citations were changed to use shortened footnotes, rather than sfn or harv, which is why WP:CITEVAR doesn't quite fit; "If there is disagreement about which style is best, defer to the style used by the first major contributor" -- TK at first chose to use templates because she thought at the time they were preferred, but now she shows better.

After the change, several pro-template editors are crying foul, that the article was "ruined", etc -- despite there being consensus among the editors who were responsible for writing the article/bringing it to FA in the first place. On top of that, the most vocal of the pro-template editors used TCO's recent "analysis" .pdf to basically denounce Hemingway's FA status, which obviously annoyed TK and others (myself included). I'm not sure where the block came from, so I can't give you a run-down on that. I believe she asked for it, however... out of solidarity with Ceoil? It seems to have quieted down somewhat. I hope this helps, María (yllosubmarine) 13:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)