Archives

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14  · 15  · 16  · 17  · 18  · 19  · 20

I just found out that a username change does not automatically connect your old GA and review stats. I checked documentation at User:ChristieBot and seems like I only have to notify you? Name change was: Vestigium Leonis -> Vestigia Leonis. It happened before any active nominations. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll connect the old and new names, but I'm traveling till the end of the month so it'll have to wait for a week or two. Remind me again if it's not fixed by February. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Vestigia Leonis (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good Evening! You contributed a review to my 2025 World Figure Skating Championships toward the end of last year. I currently have 2025 U.S. Figure Skating Championships collecting dust in the queue. If you have a free minute and are so inclined, I would appreciate any assistance. I would be happy to help review anything for you that you might have right now. Thank you so much in advance if you are able to help. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No promises, but I might be able to get to it this week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 72, November–December 2025

• Renewed partnerships
• Spotlight: Strengthening Wikimedia Collaborations with and for Open Science

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(This message was sent to User:Mike Christie and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your over 70k contributions in almost 20 years. Keep it going! Volten001 ☎ 18:50, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:58, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DAP389's GA nomination/review statistics are not displaying correctly because most of their contributions are listed under DAP388. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up -- DAP389, can you confirm you want the accounts connected? I prefer not to have the bot connect two accounts without having the user confirm that's how they want it handled. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors use the GA stats as a metric to determine what articles they review, so unlinked accounts can be deceptive, even if unintentionally. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I'm sure it's not the case here, but I have had at least one editor who changed their name ask me to connect the two, but not make it public, as they didn't want to advertise their previous name. (The numbers were small, so I'm sure there was no deception involved.) If we run into a case where someone does not want their old name connected, we can deal with it then. Or have you seen an instance of this problem already? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of the problem; we don't know just by looking at it. It's not a super serious issue and probably not anything that happens deliberately, it's just that it can artificially inflate or deflate one's ratio, which is something that a lot of reviewers look at. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Mike Christie:, this is fine. I had the userpages transferred because I lost access to my old account but I guess they were never connected. DAP 💅 03:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make the change, probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done; it should take effect the next time the pages update. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I found another account where past GAs aren't being counted if Marcostev8 would like the nominations of Marcostev88 to show up. I was looking for nominators with 0 GAs to prioritize GA newbies, and Marcostev8 showed up even though they've successfully nominated a few under a previous username. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Thebiguglyalien that would be awesome if you could merge those past GAs to my new username if possible. Thanks for bringing it to my attention :) Marcostev8 (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done; it should take effect the next time the page updates. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hope you're well! I've just noticed that my GA review count is slightly off—it currently says 24, but it should be 25. Looks like the bot changed my count when an article was moved mid-review. Any help would be appreciated, thanks! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look -- if it's what I think it is, it could take a few days till I have a block of time to fix it. I'll let you know when it's done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the problem is something to do with the sequence of moves. If you look at the move history, it got moved three times: once on 29 March by Qwerfjkl (bot), then it looks like you and Qwerfjkl collaborated on a round-robin move a few days later. Do you remember what happened? Normally when a move happens the bot tries to keep the database up to date, but the database record for this is crediting the bot with the review. There's something else odd, though, because although the GA bot/stats page has two records showing Qwerfjkl (bot) has done reviews, the ganfilter.toolforge.org GA stats page is somehow smart enough not to report them.

I think I can fix this by editing the database directly to add your name for the GA3 review, but I'd like to understand better what is going on first. If I don't have time to fix this today it's likely to be a week till I can get to it. Nag me if I haven't done anything about this by a week from today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

According to this discussion, it looks like Qwerfjkl (bot) struggled to move Talk:Doctor Who (series 2) → Talk:Doctor Who series 2 because of an existing redirect, but successfully moved /GA3 regardless, which caused some kind of disconnect and error, and then the bot removed my credit. I believe my move was to correct Qwerfjkl's move (which looked incorrect); the bot briefly gave me credit after my move but promptly removed it. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:17, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; this is helpful. I will let you know when I figure out exactly what happened. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is now fixed. I can't tell exactly what happened, but I've adjusted the database to reflect what should have happened. Let me know if you see other errors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yeah, it definitely seems to be related to the page moves, but otherwise I'm clueless. Thankfully, at least, it seems pretty rare, and in this case was caused by mass bot moves; we'll just have to keep an eye out for accounts like Qwerfjkl (bot) getting GA credits in future. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:30, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I only realised this morning that ChristieBot appears to have failed to update UndercoverClassicist’s talk page when I initiated the review for the article Harvard School yesterday. This may be an error on its part. Could you please take a look? MSincccc (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time yesterday fixing some old bugs in the bot, and for part of that time the function that posted to nominator's pages was not working correctly. Everything should be working correctly from now on. You may want to manually notify UC (and any other nominators who you reviewed yesterday). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. MSincccc (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 February 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Billy Gallagher (businessman), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Billy Gallagher's Times Square cabaret was open from sundown to dawn, with a mix of "reputable people" and those "who had practical reasons for circulating after dark"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Billy Gallagher (businessman). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Billy Gallagher (businessman)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

HurricaneZeta^C 00:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are well. I was wondering whether the January FAC reviewing statistics will be published together with the February figures, or later this month. Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - there’s someone new doing the stats this month so they are taking a little longer, but I’ll post them as soon as they’re ready. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am presently in the middle of my school examinations, so I will not be able to help in the near future.

Could you please explain how the process works? Is it done manually, or does a bot count the declarations and the types of review provided? Thank you for your response. MSincccc (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at User:Mike Christie/FACstats monthly data; that will probably answer most of your questions. The human element is the slow bit, and is shared between me and some of the FAC coordinators. It could be done by someone who is not a FAC coordinator, but ideally is someone with years of experience at FAC, since to do it right requires the same sort of judgement calls that the coords make. If you look at the January file you'll see it's been partially updated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A final question. How are FAC coordinators elected? I have tried to go through archives and discussions but never came across any specific discussion. The same with the TFA coordinator election. Is it done privately between outgoing, present and potential coordinators? Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been a coord, so I can't answer definitively, but the general approach is that when a new coord is needed the existing coords make a suggestion on WT:FAC, and a positive response there is enough to make the decision. There's no formal process. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, as the author of WP:RECEPTION, can I ask you for advice on Lake Tauca#Scenarios and research history which has a similar issue? I am not sure what the ideal fix is - especially since this seems to be a topic where everyone is using their own dating. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jo-Jo, not sure I'll have time as real life is quite busy at the moment. At a quick look I agree readability is an issue with this many numbers and ranges and qualifying statements. I will stop by if I can but can't promise anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I would like to ask you for a clarification on a discussion that you recently closed. I am wondering how this discussion could be closed as 'premature'?

The stated reason is "premature as per multiple commenters", and from their comments it could be inferred that (the topic of) the discussion is still open elsewhere - and thus opening another one would really be 'premature' - but that's simply not true. As far as I know, the discussion that I opened was the first and only instance of it.

So I'd really like to have some guidance on this ... If a discussion on a subset of a topic (say, "latin names of birds") is open, does that mean that opening a discussion of a broader set (say, "latin names of animals", or "names of birds") will be considered premature until the first discussion is closed?

Sorry to bother you (this is my first deeper dive into Wikipedia), and thanks - _zmajizmaji^zmaji(talk) 13:16, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; happy to reply and I hope I can answer your question. In one sense, the main reason I closed it was because the comments all suggested it should be closed -- that is, there was consensus to close it. But that doesn't help you much. The commenters themselves gave reasons why they thought it was premature. You might take a look at WP:RFCBEFORE, which I think was a big part of the objections. Before we spend editors' time on an RfC it's sensible to make sure there is a coherent and unbiased way to frame the RfC. Wording that sounds good to you may sound biased to someone else. Getting the wording of an RfC right is very important if you want a usable result. In this particular it's also a contentious area, and I think it would make more sense to have a non-RfC conversation asking what would be a good next step. But before that I think I would suggest waiting for any other relevant RfCs to end, as any consensu on those would presumably be relevant to any related RfC. I am not knowledgeable about the topic you raised, and you can ignore me if you want, but I think you're going to find this is a difficult area to get consensus in as many editors have strong feelings about these country names in this period. I don't think you'll find it a productive use of your time to debate this, but it's up to you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

I will try again - but slowly, so I will begin the discussion at the Teahouse (as WP:RFCBEFORE suggests). Best regards! :-)

- _zmajizmaji^zmaji(talk) 14:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]