User talk:Mike Christie

	Loch Muick Archives
	1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17

If I leave a message on your talk page, I'll keep your talk page on my watchlist until you reply (for a few days, at least), so you can reply here or on your talk page as you prefer. If you use a {{talkback}} template here, please sign it so the archive bot will archive it.

For other discussions, there's no need to ping me if I've edited the page or section you have posted to; I'll be watching those pages for a week or so.

Offham Hill scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Offham Hill article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 18, 2022. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 18, 2022, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jim. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of War Birds

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article War Birds you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of War Birds

The article War Birds you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:War Birds for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For giving Pruitt–Igoe a thorough review while simultaneously reviewing 20 (!) other articles for GA. Your work is much appreciated! Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 19:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It was an interesting article and a pleasure to review it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Galaxy titles grid.png

The file File:Galaxy titles grid.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused image that could be rendered as a wiki table

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SF magazine advice, and access?

Hi Mike, hope you're well. If you have a moment I'd appreciate your advice on Vector as a source; the impression I've gotten so far is that its reviews may not be as weighty as a better-known magazine's, but it may still be usable.

Also, do you happen to have access to Locus magazine issues from the 90s? I'm looking for 409, 421, 432, 434, and 435. I don't need all of them by any means, but any would be nice. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the plus side, Vector always had editorial control, and the editor, back when I was involved anyway, would choose reviewers rather than just publishing whatever was sent in. Factual material such as news reports I think would be fine. Reviews -- it might get questioned at FAC but at would be fine at GA. If the reviewer has other writing credentials that would be best. E.g. I wrote a couple of reviews for Vector, but I also wrote for Foundation, which would help if you wanted to use a review I wrote. If the reviewer is a published author that would also help. For articles that are not reviewers but broader critical commentary I would not want to use it unless the author had established a separate reputation, so again to use me as an example I wrote a piece in Vector on Suzette Haden Elgin's Native Tongue that I think should not be treated as a high-quality reliable source -- I have a handful of sf-related publications to my name, including a story, but that doesn't establish me as a critic with a reputation. Re Locus, no, I got rid of all my paper issues a while back, but I do have an online subscription so I can search their archive if you like. What are you working on, by the way? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all this! I'm working on The Farseer trilogy, which I can take zero credit for thus far: Olivaw-Daneel has written the current version and taken it to GA. I felt it could easily be FA standard with a little polish and more contemporary reviews. There's not too many listed at ISFDB, but the majority are in locus, in the issues mentioned; if you wouldn't mind searching, that'd be appreciated! I've gotten hold of ones in Asimov's SF, F&SF, and Interzone, in addition to the Vector review. That last is by Alan Fraser, who so far as I can see wasn't a writer in his own right, but did write a number of reviews. If you think it'd be doubtful for FAC, though, I may skip it; there's not a dearth of material. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd avoid using Fraser; looks like he did a lot of reviewing but was not a writer. For Locus, I searched the website and found only three links with even minor useful mentions: 2005 interview, influence of the cover, quote from PW review. If you can't access any of those three let me know and I can email you PDFs. I checked the backfile available online and it only goes back to 2017 as complete PDF issues. I haven't purchased those but I bought a lifetime subscription in 1985 so can probably sweet-talk them into letting me have them if you need them. I recall reading a couple of Hobbs' books not long after they came out; I enjoyed them, I think, but I was already starting to OD on high fantasy by then so never finished the trilogy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The tidbit from the interview with Hobb may be usable, the others don't add much, I think. The reviews are all in issues from 1995-1997 (numbers above); so I imagine they simply haven't been digitized yet. I got my hopes up because a couple are available on the internet archive, and many other magazines are...I'll ask at RX to see if anyone else has them, though I suspect it's unlikely. One of the issues was available on ebay, I'm considering getting it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just poked around a bit more and it turns out everything's been digitized back to 2000; 1999 and before have only the ToC digitized. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, I found a kickstarter campaign seeking funds to digitize all issues...perhaps someone will have hard copies they can scan. Thanks! If it's alright with you, I may ask you to take a look before we take this to FAC. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike Christie and Vanamonde; these older reviews are hard to get to. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PR advice

Hello, I was wondering if you could give some advice at my current PR for a pop-music article. I have worked with mostly exclusively-music-related editors before, so having advice from an editor like you would be substantially beneficial. Regards, Ippantekina (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I think I'm going to pass; I'm staying very busy with GA reviews at the moment and a very occasional comment at FAC, and don't want to take anything else on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 52

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 52, July – August 2022

New instant-access collections:
- SpringerLink and Springer Nature
- Project MUSE
- Taylor & Francis
- ASHA
- Loeb
Feedback requested on this newsletter

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of John Raymond science fiction magazines

Congratulations, Mike Christie! The article you nominated, John Raymond science fiction magazines, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Hog Farm (talk) via FACBot (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

re: Hall of Fame for Great Americans

Mike, I hope this finds you doing well;) On the Hall of Fame for Great Americans page Hall of Fame for Great Americans the images of about 19 statues were removed by another user and I restored them today, but you removed them again. My understanding from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Public_art_and_copyrights_in_the_US is that statues displayed publicly (published) before 1978 are in the public domain and therefore images of them would be allowed. It says:

"Prior to 1978, copyrighted works, including statues, first published or registered in the USA that failed to comply with all of the required copyright formalities lost their copyright and entered the public domain. This means that "publishing" a copyrighted statue without satisfying the requirement that notice of the copyright be displayed (or “visibly perceived”) ended the copyright of the statue and placed it in the public domain. (17 USC § 401(a); see Nimmer on Copyrights § 4.02(B)2 and 17 USC § 303.)"

I assume you have more experience about this than I do since I am not very active on Wikipedia. Because I don't understand this issue could you explain it to me a bit more? Thank you!

Hello, Mike Christie. You have new messages at Jackygage's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jackygage (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I’m not an image expert but I the way I understand it is that we would need to be sure these statues were out of copyright. I don’t know for sure that these statues were or are without any visible copyright notice. If that’s so and your interpretation is correct then yes they would be fine. If they’re in copyright then freedom of panorama is relevant so the images are in copyright too. I’m in a business meeting most of the day and won’t be able to post much but there’s a copyright notice board you might post at to get a more expert opinion; the people there are likely to know much more than I do about this issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply Mike, I really appreciate it! I am very interested in copyright so I will take your suggestion and post on the link you provided me with (copyright notice board). If they agree images should be allowed of the Hall of Fame for Great Americans (since the statues have been on display since before 1978) then I hope you will also agree. I'll plan to follow up with you about this so we will both know for sure. It's an interesting issue. The wikipedia page for Hall of Fame for Great Americans states "The majority of the busts were sculpted between 1922 and 1930" so I have to say I will be surprised, then, if images of these statues would not be allowed to be shown. Jackygage (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]