User talk:Mike Christie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mike Christie is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 ·

[edit] Btrieve

I'm curious what happened to this article (I wrote it). Did Pervasive ever get back to you? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

They did, and I think are somewhat interested in fixing it, but when it lost FA status it presumably got moved to the back burner. I wouldn't be surprised if they simply don't get around to it. The person I know there indicated it was an interesting idea, but I'm sure it's not a top priority for them. I guess we just wait and see. Mike Christie (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, I'd still say it's a more informative article than anything else on the Internet :-) Tbsdy lives (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Galaxy

"who was also launching": Actually, Galileo had been around for some time (years?) prior to McCaffrey's acquisition of Galaxy. Pepso2 (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. If you spot any errors, please feel free to fix them as you see fit. Currently I'm just trying to get more information onto the page -- I know it's going to need clean up and reorganization once it gets more content. Mike Christie (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You've probably been asked this

But I was wondering if you would be interested in applying for adminship. They love article writers there, and you're certainly one of the best we have. I'd gladly nom you in you're interested. Let me know. Wizardman 21:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been asked before; thank you for the compliment. I will decline, for now at least, for a couple of reasons. The main one is that I'm about to take a contract job for three months and my life is going to be fairly disrupted until at least September; I suspect I won't be very active until then at least. (I might be able to take some of my references with me, in which case I will at least be able to keep up on article writing.) The other is that I don't currently plan to get involved in many activities where adminship would help, and I haven't got much recent experience at places such as AfD, so it might not be that easy a nomination. I don't think I'd ever be an active admin. I do have rollback, which has been intermittently useful, and I think that will do for a while.

Thanks for asking, though; I appreciate it. Perhaps next year. Mike Christie (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

gosh, I would have asked, but ... I thought you were an admin! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Peer Review help

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The FA-Team

Hi. There has been some discussion of how to improve the FA-Team's functioning. It's be grand if you could comment on the new suggested structure, and perhaps also look at our current proposals. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)