User talk:Mike Christie

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

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.

Precious anniversary

I am still proud of the TFA 1 September ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Infinity Science Fiction, "about another minor science fiction magazine of the late 1950s. Its main claim to fame is for publishing Arthur Clarke's story "The Star", which was rejected by The Saturday Evening Post as blasphemous, but which went on to win that year's Hugo Award and is now considered a classic."! --

Signing so this will archive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 40

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020

New partnerships
- Al Manhal
- Ancestry
- RILM
#1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Super-Science Fiction scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Super-Science Fiction article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 24, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. It's at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 24, 2020, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jim. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Eadbald descendants.gif

The file File:Eadbald descendants.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused free use image with no clear use on the Wiki.

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. fuzzy510 (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TFA

It always brightens my day to see you on the mainpage ! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Sandy, just noticed this! Thank you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine volumes in bibliographies

Hi Mike. I've been attempting to source Vonda N. McIntyre bibliography, and been running into issues where very many stories don't have full bibliographic information on the internet outside ISFDB. When stories are reprinted, the anthologies just refer to the magazine, and not to date and volume. Do you know of other sources that might connect stories to the volume and issue they were published in? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Phil Stephenson-Payne has an outstandingly good index at this page; it's absolutely a reliable source. I think I can find backup for that in SFE3 if you want proof it's an RS. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Would you prefer that over ISFDB, if you were reviewing at FAC/FLC? Or might it perhaps be useful to present both? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably marginally preferable to the ISFDB since it's not user-edited, though I think the ISFDB can be treated as reliable for what it includes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, thanks again. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jstor

Due to a recent PC crash, I have lost access both to my jstor password and the email a/c used for retrieval. Yeah, I know and feel tick here. In the meantime, if you could get and email [1] would appreciate a lot. My bad, um what can I say. Ceoil (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceoil — sorry, I seem to be having some trouble with Jstor too. I haven’t used it in a while so I think my access has expired. Maybe a TPS will be able to find it? Or WP:RX is usually very quick for anything available on Jstor. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks anyway. Ceoil (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) You can access JSTOR at TWL's My library without password. Cheers. --Gazal world (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uncanny Tales (Canadian pulp magazine)

Hi Mike; I hope you're well. The logo image in this article has been nominated for deletion, as it is too complex to be PD. Seems I made the wrong call. You may want to replace it with a non-free cover, as I suspect (but can't remember) that this was what was in use before I uploaded the logo image. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal -- I think it's hard to justify a fair use cover, so if the deletion goes through I'll just let it go with no illustration (there wasn't one before). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Far future

As our foremost subject-matter expert on SF, you may be interested and able to help us with this discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I've commented there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rescuing Far Future

Good start with [2]. I recommend copying it to your sandbox and restoring it as soon as the fancruft mess is deleted, we will get a new article and maybe we can even WP:DYK it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Good idea; I've made a copy of it on my PC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Hello again! Apologies for the rather random message. I have a question about the "Inspired" (song) article. An IP user has been marking the song as a single although I have already cited sources in the article that support its status as a promotional single. I have already reverted their edit twice. In the first edit summary, I pointed out the existing sources in the article, and in the second edit summary, I encouraged them to open a talk page discussion to avoid edit warring. I know I should not revert their edit if they do it a third time. I was wondering if you had any advice on what I should do if this IP user continues making these edits on the page? Thank you in advance! I am sure the IP user means well, and I am always rather uncertain how to best handle these types of situations. Aoba47 (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's always a difficult situation. You might post a note on the article talk page quoting the sources and then if you end up reverting again, refer to the talk page discussion -- that's easier for folks to find than digging through the article itself to see what the sources say. It's not an area I know much about, but it looks like you have three sources that support you so unless there's some substantive discussion you can be confident about reverting, always avoiding 3RR of course. It's also possible that others have the article on their watchlist and will join any conversation, or you could post at a relevant Wikiproject to get more opinions -- more eyes on it is generally a good thing, since if they agree with you there's no 3RR and if they don't you can have a useful discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, here's something I do that often works. We can't be sure that IPs understand to come to the talk page, or read edit summaries. We know they see what is actually in the article. So, when you've hit the revert limit but they haven't engaged, add something to the article that may get their attention. In this case, a Template:Disputed inline provides a link to talk right before their eyes. If they don't engage on talk, at least you can revert in a few days, hoping they have now understood. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses. I did not consider posting on a WikiProject, but I agree that it is a good option. At least one other editor has reverted a similar change in the article so I should remember that other editors have articles on their watchlist. And I should have realized that an IP user may not understand phrases like the "talk page" or be aware of edit summaries. I was unfamiliar with the disputed inline template so thank you for bringing it to my attention. It may be beneficial to me to write up something on the talk page and use the template to link to it for the future. Apologies again taking both of your time and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another source request

Hi Mike, I've another source request, if it's not too much trouble. I'm trying to get a decent number of magazine reviews for Dreamsnake to fill out the commentary from scholars, etc; do you have to own F&SF, January 1979, Asimov's Science Fiction, September-October 1978, or Locus, #216 November 1978? All have reviews that I would expect to be decent. Thanks in advance; not a problem if you don't have them. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I owned all of them but all have been sold. However, I think I have the Stableford review from Foundation 16, and the review in Galileo, so let me know if you would like me to dig those out of the basement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to find Stableford; it's been digitized; and I also have the Orson Scott Card one, and the Nickerson one, of those listed here. I hoping for Clute, as a heavyweight in the field, but the Galileo review would be very helpful, if it's not too much trouble. I had some hopes of taking this to FAC eventually, but on an initial pass, the available material is a bit sparse...Vanamonde (Talk) 22:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sent. By the way, were you aware that the ISFDB also indexes author interviews? See the bottom of this page; unfortunately I don't have that issue of Galileo, but it's going for only $2.50 on the web, and I don't have any of the others either. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also had a quick look on newspapers.com and I'm finding a few contemporary reviews -- do you have access? If not I can trawl through and take clippings. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have newspapers.com, that would be much appreciated (I've considered signing up, but for most of my work it's not very relevant...) I've a couple of other interviews on hand, including a recent one that's currently cited; but the index is good to have, thank you...Vanamonde (Talk) 22:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper clippings: here, here (a syndicated column I think; I'm pretty sure I saw that one in multiple papers), here, here, and here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I still have lots of old issues of F&SF and Asimov's. They are not well-organised by date but I'll take a look to see how easy it would be to check... Andrew🐉(talk) 22:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: That would be much appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One other suggestion; I mentioned to my wife, who’s a fan of both Dreamsnake and The Exile Waiting, that you were working on the article, and she reminded me of Sarah Lefanu’s book In the Chinks of the World Machine, about feminist sf. We think it has at least some discussion of McIntyre, and a look on Google Books confirms that, though there’s not enough visible to tell how useful it would be. Do you have a copy? I used to own one but if I still have it I’ve no idea where it is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I took a while to get back to this; I've been busy in RL. Thank you very much for the clippings; I will use some if not all of them. Do you know how different In the Chinks of the World Machine is from her 1989 Feminism and Science Fiction? I have a copy of that, and based on a google books preview there isn't anything different in the older book. It has some useful material, certainly, including a more direct comparison of McIntyre's first two books, and a more explicit analysis of Snake as a character. I'm now a little more hopeful of landing this at FAC eventually, though god knows there's any number of other things I need to do first. I'm sure you'll see it if it gets there. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're the same; one is just a retitling of the other, or at least so says the ISFDB. I look forward to seeing the article at FAC. If you want a pre-FAC review, let me know when you think it's ready to look at. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]