User talk:Swtpc6800: Difference between revisions

I often take material from my web site and use it here on Wikipedia. http://www.swtpc.com/mholley

Here is the permission section from my web site.

I want this information to be available to all and you can make copies of any of the files for personal use. If you want to use a few images or pages for commercial use you may do so without additional permission. If you want to publish any of my original photos or material and need a written release, I can provide that.

SWTPC6800 00:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Swtpc6800, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Karmafist 18:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the KIM-1 direct quotes; none of this would have been necessary had the Wikipedia "consensus" actually made sense. --Wtshymanski 23:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded for diligent research which resulted in finding the reference that shows the JEDEC is cited as "an industry wide standard-setting organization". Fnagaton 19:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the Academic Journals wikiproject is collaborating on Electrical Experimenter this week, and it would be great if you could help us. If you have physical copies of this magazine that are in the public domain (i.e. pre-1923), it would be great if you could scan a few pages, upload them to Commons, and note the availability on our "Transcription" page. Cheers, John Vandenberg (talk) 09:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the widespread use of this kibibyte/mebibyte/etc. on Wikipedia, made a few edits which were promptly reverted. Now from reading the discussion on MOSNUM I'm starting to realize that by presenting my own argument against the usage of the IEC prefixes, I'd probably be biting off more than I could chew. Thanks for being persistent in your efforts; you definitely have the stronger argument and I hope it'll effect change eventually. Regards, 130.49.2.244 (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

	Nice job on "Miss Ima"!
	To all of the excellent editors who were part of the Karanacs-led collaboration to bring Ima Hogg to featured status, it was a pleasure working with you on such a fine article about a great lady. Thank you so much for your contribution to this fun collaboration. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]	File:Ima large.jpg

Hi there. I'd like to thank you for documenting the details of the TIME public domain issues (due to failure to renew copyright). You did this here. I was wondering if it would be a good idea to actually do a separate template and category for this. I noticed one of the covers is manually in Category:Fair use TIME magazine covers. Maybe a new category structure of TIME magazine covers, split into the fair use and PD (non-renewed) ones would help? Do you have a list of all the cover images around? Carcharoth (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a great idea to have a "magazine cover in public domain, not renewed" tag. This would be for all magazines, not just for Time. There would be a link to a central page that has evidence of the failure to renew. My Time magazine details would go there. (I think Newsweek has missed even more issues.) From correspondence with the current copyright holder, I have found the Ziff-Davis Publishing and Gernsback Publications did not renew copyrights as a mater of choice. Too much bother. I also found that a side effect the leveraged buyouts of the 1980s were the new owners forgot to renew out of print magazines. See Talk:Electronics Illustrated

You can find a list of Time magazine images I have tagged at the bottom of this page. User:Swtpc6800/Sandbox#Public_domain_issues

-- SWTPC6800 (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't have time to follow through now, and may not remember this in a few days. Could you remind me if I forget? Carcharoth (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the test pattern referenced quote from the 1949 paper source (The Television Test Pattern | journal = Radio & Television News | volume = 41 | issue = 1 | pages = pp. 38–39, 135–136 | publisher = Ziff-Davis | date = January 1949).
Firsfron discovered an ungrammatical 'it's' in the quote '("it's" means "it is" or "it has", never "belonging to it")'.
Would it be possible for you to check whether the error is in the original source, and thus should be marked with {{sic}}, or simply corrected as a typo?
Also, are you sure Radio & Television News is properly cited as a journal?? (Please reply here if desired) Milo 04:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the page. See for yourself. I will upload more tomorrow.

Image:Radio TV News Jan 1949 pg38.png

SWTPC6800 (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of the situation, guys. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article WRNY, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Brill! Victuallers (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that trip down memory lane. I wonder how many of these writers ever handled working manually loomed core memory outside of a museum? LeadSongDog (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Electrician and Mechanic, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Amazing Science Fiction May 1978.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Thanks for the fix! Mike Christie (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're ready to go; I left a note at the article talk page. Anything else you think we should do before we nominate? Mike Christie (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for the barnstar. I’ve always had in on the back of my mind how the Yellowstone caldera is a ticking time bomb. It’s gone off on average every 700,000 years and the last time it disrupted the world was 650,000 years ago. So I’ve long thought: “what the hey; why not drill around the periphery and tap off all the geothermal energy you can?” It’s doubtful you could tap off so much you actually make much of a dent in the geyser activity of the park, and to the extent that you take a “hundredth of a PSI out of the tire,” you’re just that much further from the next blow out. So I just got around to calculating the amount of energy in the top two miles of the 35 × 45-mile magma chamber.

Assuming the magma is at 1350 °C and freezes at 1000 °C, the energy that could be extracted from the top two miles of magma until the chamber fully freezes (extracting the latent heat of fusion at 1000 °C), would provide all the power for the United States for the next 2000 years. And that value assumes that no further heat comes from below; it is just the energy that can be extracted from what is currently entrained in the magma.

If you care to double check my numbers (I wish you would), all the numbers you need can be found in Enthalpy of Magmatic Crystallization (top of page #2) and in CIA factbook: Energy consumption of U.S.

Unless I have done a big, BIG goof in my calculation, it appears the energy that can be extracted from below Yellowstone is limited only by how densely one can pack geothermal plants around the periphery of the park. My intuition is that even if we tapped off the thermal power at a rate of 13.74 trillion megawatts (the 2005 U.S. electrical consumption rate), we couldn’t actually freeze the magma chamber; the input power level from below may be at least that much. Greg L (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- just wanted to see if you there was anything else you think we should fix before nominating Amazing at FAC. Last time I asked you found some improvements that were needed, so I don't want to nominate without checking in. Let me know and I'll do the nom. Mike Christie (talk) 10:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ready -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll go ahead and nominate. Mike Christie (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. This is the page to watchlist. I will be working about 8-6 most weekdays EST, but will have this Friday largely free and will be otherwise available to respond to any points that come up. I think you said you hadn't done a FAC nom before -- please jump in and fix anything you see raised as an issue, but also feel free to ask me about the FA criteria if you're not sure an objection is accurate. I'm not infallible but I've done it a few times so I have a reasonably good feel for what works at FAC. Later -- Mike Christie (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space Science Fiction Magazine was too short for FAC because it was only 922 words. You won't have that problem with Amazing Stories; the word count is 9754 words with over 100 citations. Someone will complain it is too long. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, readable prose size is 43Kb, per Dr pda's script (a very handy tool, if you don't already have it). This recent article says the article is big, but nowhere near the top end. So if someone complains I think they'd have to do it on the grounds of excessive detail, not because it exceeds an FA limit. Mike Christie (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It makes a nice surprise to login and get a Barnstar. :) Fnagaton 01:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just found a note in Erik Leif Davin's Pioneers of Wonder that you might be interested in. Davin cites Moskowitz, "Amazing Encounter", part II, in Fantasy Review 89 for his information, but makes no reference to the 1978 AMZ article critiquing Moskowitz. Then he says Gernsback's creditors "received $1.08 for every dollar they were owed" and in a footnote adds "Actually, this represents the ratio of assets to disbursements at the time of the bankruptcy. Because of administration fees, creditors would have received slightly less, about 95 percent of their claims, according to an estimate published in the New York Times, April 3, 1929." I wonder if Davin has a separate source for the "ratio of assets to disbursements", or if this is also taken from Moskowitz. Mike Christie (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to say that I'm most impressed with your commentary there, in which your professional expertise is clear. Thanks. Tony (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you convert your Copyleft image according to Wikipedia recommandations for image upload? I tried converting the image to monochrome and the size dropped from 52KB to less than 7KB without any further optimizations as recommended in the instructions. 24.83.176.171 (talk) 09:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]