User talk:Mike Christie

	Loch Muick Archives
	1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 ·

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.

Volney Mathison

Volney Mathison

Hi there Mike Christie, I hope you are doing well. I am doing some research in working to improve the article Volney Mathison - and I came across the article Amazing Stories and noticed you had improved it quite well to WP:FA quality - nice work. I was wondering if you knew of some sources that could be used at this article? Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have this: Bleiler, Everett F. (1998). Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years: A complete coverage of the genre magazines Amazing, Astounding, Wonder, and others from 1926 through 1936. Kent, Ohio: The Kent State University Press. ISBN 0-87338-604-3., which contains a paragraph on Volney and a description of his story in Amazing. Here's the paragraph (p.281):

"Mathison, Volney G. U.S. author. Judging by this story and the author's The Radio Buster (Philadephia: Stokes, 1924), Mathison was probably a professional brass pounder (i.e. old-time telegraph operator) with some experience in Alaska and elsewhere. Mathison also had two short pieces in Gernsback's Radio News and "The Death Bottle" in Weird Tales, March 1925. Mathison was a prolific author elsewhere under the pseud. Dex Volney, contributing Western stories with Alaskan setting [sic, not "settings"] to Street and Smith magazines. Apparently resident in New York at this time and connected with the Pacific Radio Co., New York City.

The story description is about twice this long; let me know if you'd like me to transcribe it for you.

I have a list of some of my sf references here; if there are other sources you'd like me to check, just let me know. Mike Christie (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you very very much! It was apparently that story in Amazing that had his (initially fictional) idea for the E-meter, so yea, that would be most interesting to have as well. As for other sources to check, I am not sure which ones might have some useful discussion of Mathison, but you can take a look at what I have added to the article, so far, to see if anything jumps out as possible correlation. Thanks again, Cirt (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do the story description this evening after work, and I'll have a look for other source -- not too optimistic there; Bleiler's the most comprehensive and he only gives him a paragraph. But we'll see. Mike Christie (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no worries. FWIW, I added from that above-cited source, to the article, so thanks again! ;) Cirt (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, as pseudonym "Dex Volney", it appears multiple works by Mathison were selected for inclusion in a few "Best of..." compilation fiction books. Cirt (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also see this page; may not be a reliable source in our sense (I'd have to check), but you can be confident the information is accurate if you can source it elsewhere. Later -- Mike Christie (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hills, William Henry (1927). "Beginning the Story". The Writer. p. 57. Volume 39. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Any chance you could get access to this somehow? :P Cirt (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no -- the materials I have access to are only those in my own collection. I also checked to see if I own that copy of Amazing Stories, and I don't, I'm afraid. Mike Christie (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no prob. Cirt (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the AFD: "his early work is described in the Nicholls/Clute Encyclopedia of SF as the cornerstone of SF bibliograph" - do you have the full cite for this, and the relevant text? :P Cirt (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The basic cite tag is: {{cite book|last=Clute|first= John|coauthors= Nicholls, Peter| title= The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction| year=1993| publisher= St. Martin's Press, Inc.| location= New York| isbn= 0-312-09618-6}} and the page reference is p. 134–135. John Clute wrote the entry on Bleiler. (I'm talking about the Bleiler entry, not an entry on Mathison; I assume that was clear?) The entry is titled "Bleiler, Everett Franklin". Mike Christie (talk) 11:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I promised you the other Bleiler quote; I'll do that now. Mike Christie (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is.

960. THE MONGOLIAN'S RAY. Amazing Stories, June 1929. Unsigned ill. Short story. * Flim-flam. * Samuel Jones, former telegraph operator, is associated with Mazerka Magazine in a program to expose scientific hoaxes, fraudulent mediums, and similar disreputable phenomena. He has twenty-five thousand dollars per year at his disposal. He is astonished one day when a man in complete plate armor enters his office and tells a wild tale. The Asian, also called Mongolians and Tartars, have perfected a long-distance hypnotic ray for mind control, with the intention of exterminating the white race. Only heavy metal is a shield against the ray. The armored man (Count Vrennisky) and his associate Dr. Von der Vogel are in perpetual danger of assassination. * Jones, led along by circumstances, including a newspaper report of Von der Vogel's death, decides to investigate the armored man's claim; he visits the armored man's laboratory, where there is an impressive range of equipment. * When Jones meddles with it, there is an explosion, and Jones is morally bound to replace the radium that has been dissipated. As he is about to sign a check, the con is blown. A young woman, who he thought was the count's associate, is a Secret Service agent. The so-called Count Vrennisky is Arman Stressman, Radium Harry, etc., a well-known con man. The newspaper article about Von der Vogel's death had been planned, and the apparatus had been rigged to explode at the slightest touch.

I think the "Flim-flam" at the start is simply Bleiler's comment about the theme of the story. Doesn't look like anything to do with the E-meter, does it? The asterisks in the quote are apparently Bleiler's way of saving space by avoiding a new line per paragraph; I would suggest transcribing any direct quote you need without them. Mike Christie (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot the relevant text for the cite about Bleiler from the Clute/Nicholls encyclopedia. Here it is: "[his Checklist] soon became recognized as the cornerstone of modern sf bibliography. The fact that other works [...] have hugely expanded on its coverage [...] does not diminish the significance of EFB's original work. In two further works he has himself expanded upon that work: The Guide to Supernatural Fiction (1983), solo, and Science Fiction: The Early Years (dated 1990 but 1991), with the assistance of his son, Richard Bleiler, bibliographies of the categories designated, are both annotated with an extraordinary thoroughness; they are essential reference sources for any student of the field." Mike Christie (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have struck your "Keep" comment at the AFD. I must admit that is a bit disappointing after the research and work I have been doing on the article, though I highly respect your views and of course you may do as you wish. However I think as a whole, the sum total of the work I have done on the article and the sources added shows it merits keeping, when the individual's career as both a fiction writer, and an inventor, are considered together. I will continue to do more research on the topic. :( Cirt (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my !vote was only based on Bleiler, and on reflection I don't think Bleiler is enough by itself, though it does contribute. I didn't !vote delete, because I haven't really reviewed the other sources. If I get time I will do so and I may well !vote keep again. Good luck with the article. Mike Christie (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guyana

Mike, ages and ages ago you dropped a note to see if I knew anything about Guyana. At the time I didn't, but as it happens I know a little more now: I was there in the summer, and have done a little reading around. Is this still an interest of yours? If so, I'd be happy to help out as much as I can. (Also to some extent with the other Guianas.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For now it will have to stay a future project; I can only do one major extra-curricular thing at a time, and right now I am teaching myself Latin, since I've discovered it would be very useful on the medieval history pages (and I also just felt like it). I think that will take me at least till the summer, and till then I don't think I'll be very active in article content space. When I get back to it I will contact you again and perhaps we could collaborate. I did acquire two or three books but haven't gone through them yet. So, maybe later. Mike Christie (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Quo, quo, scelesti, ruitis? aut cur dexteris aptantur enses conditi?" Ah, the benefits of a classical education. Anyhow, v. impressive you should be teaching yourself Latin. Give me a shout whenever on Guyana. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MRR: many thanks and suggestion

Hey thanks so much for teaching me how to indent, so helpful! --Kylabl (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. First and foremost, many thanks indeed for volunteering to help out with the educational assignment Magical Realism Reconsidered. As always with such projects, it is of course the responsibility of the students to take the lead in editing the chosen articles, and above all to do the research and contribute reliable sources. But any help, however small, that established Wikipedians can provide, perhaps above all in guiding new users unfamiliar with the technicalities and protocols of the encyclopedia, as well (at a later stage) with copy-editing suggestions and the MOS, is very much appreciated. Please, however, feel no compunction to go above and beyond what I know is your usual generosity on the site. The project's success or failure must depend in the last analysis on the effort that the students put in. But I know that they will be extremely grateful for anything you are able to do, and indeed it is ideally part of the project that they also learn to work with people such as yourself: they are contributing to a public site, and their ability to negotiate with other editors and deal with feedback is an integral part of the exercise.

My only suggestion is that, in line with the discussion [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Magical_Realism_Reconsidered#Just_to_make_sure...|here]], you might want to indicate on the project page an article or articles that you are particularly interested in watching and helping with. Again, you should not feel you have to do this; we are pleased for you to aid the project in any way that you see fit. But it does help if a particular group working on a specific article feel that they have an experienced editor or two to whom they can turn in the first instance.

Again, many thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may do that, if I have time to be a real help. I am so ignorant of the topics that I think I'll just wait and see who needs help the most and jump in there; my content knowledge is not going to be relevant so it doesn't matter which article it is. (Who needs help could be the ones making the most progress just as much as the ones making the least progress, of course.) If there's anything that you'd like to point me at in particular, let me know. I have all the articles watchlisted, and three or four of the students. Looks like a big class this time around! Mike Christie (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grand. Thanks. Yes, it's a bigger class... and bigger groups. Some changes in approach. We'll see! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS SO MUCH FOR THAT :) Im really new at this. It's almost like I don't even no where to start so if I have questions I now know who to ask.. thanks a ton.--Laurarosenielsen (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike!! yeah that's what i wanted to do. my bad. talk to you later! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tniamath (talk • contribs) 04:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of manuscripts of Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica

Maybe you may look at the article talk page of List of manuscripts of Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica. Thanx--Diwas (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move protection

I move protected both just now, thanks for asking. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Japan/archive2

So prose is the only issue with the article? I remember asking a few people on the Guild of Copyeditors and ran software for copyediting, but I am still not sure if there is anything content wise. I will try and fix some of the points you mentioned. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a few more folks from Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors to see what they can do. I already told them that the lead has been done already by you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure when the copyedit will be completed, but I asked a lot of people and got replies that it will be done shortly. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The copyediting is being done as I speak. Anything else you can think of? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mheart did the copyedit for the Japanese flag article and it was completed today. Is there anything else other than a copyedit that you need for this article? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zscout, I'm sorry, but I can't promise to go back to the article in a reasonable time and give you the feedback, though I appreciate you giving me the opportunity. I may not review it if it returns to FAC in any case, as I am not very active as a reviewer. If I do get some time over the next week or two, I will take a look, but I'm afraid it may not happen. Mike Christie (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you are not able to review, with all of the changes that were done and the copyedit made, would it be ok if I bring it to FAC again? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly can't object, since I don't have time to look at it. I think you should follow your judgment. Mike Christie (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait for what the other two opposers said, but I will take it back to FAC before the end of the month. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AS King articles

Thanks for your comment. If you want to follow the style notes OK, though my own view is that what the user needs to see straight away for a monarch is the dates he reigned and where he was king of. The dates of birth and death are easily seen in the right hand infobox (if that is the right term). The infoboxes are inconsistent, and I am planning on cleaning them up next. I found a problem with Edward the Elder, as I would like to put King of Wessex, but I am not sure this would be acceptable - see my comment in the discussion. Any advice on this?Dudley Miles (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do find infoboxes useful, and as almost all the AS king articles have them, I trust that for consistency I can insert them in the one or two which do not.

As you say that your knowledge goes up to 900, I would like to raise a point about Æthelbert. The article on him states that he had two sons, one of whom challenged Edward the Elder for the throne. This struck me as odd as one of Æthelred's sons challenged Edward. The editor cites Burke's Peerage, and I see he is correct - http://www.burkespeerage.com/articles/roking01.aspx, but the DNB article on Æthelbert does not mention any children and Stenton says that Æthelbert presumably had none. I assume I can delete this and explain my reasons in the discussion.Dudley Miles (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Galaxy 1950s issues grid.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Galaxy 1950s issues grid.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Galaxy 1960s issues grid.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Galaxy 1960s issues grid.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Galaxy 1970s issues grid.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Galaxy 1970s issues grid.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate use of JPEG format

With regard to the three images mentioned above, you have used the wrong format. JPEG should be used for photographic data. Tables are better saved as PNG or SVG, or just made into tables in the article. You'll notice a significant quality improvement if you use PNG for these tables. You can see a summary of when to use what formats at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_types. Thanks. -- Jalanpalmer (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peripatus

Just noticed your nom at FFD and wondered: is the quote on your user page is actually a reference to Peripatus? Mike Christie (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - it's either a relatively common alternate or mis-spelling. One day I should get my namesake article in better shape ! - Peripitus (Talk) 03:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]