User talk:Hrothgar cyning/Archive 1

King Arthur

Don't worry about using your book. I looked into it, and it seems pretty well received and provides us with a lot of good information not found elsewhere. As long as you're not trying to promote yourself at the expense of the encyclopedia, there's no conflict of interest.

Keep up the excellent work. If you wish, you should join the Wikipedia:WikiProject King Arthur - it's not very active right now, but it's always good to have people who know what they're talking about on board.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Articles

I'd say it's getting pretty close. There's a list of the criteria here. I'd say the main things to change will be introducing some images, including a bit more on post-medieval portrayals of him, and probably making some subsections within the longer sections. The intro will probably have to be tightened a bit as well. Articles are nominated at Featured Article Candidates, they are reviewed there. Generally other editors will offer suggestions for improvement, and the nominator and others working on the article will make the necessary changes. At this stage I'd imagine they'd bring up the things I just mentioned. You may want to talk to Wrad, he's currently working to get Sir Gawain and the Green Knight featured, so he'll know more about the process than I do.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concepts of Arthur

Just letting you know I recently got a copy of your book. Extremely fascinating stuff. I haven't seen any other work that attempts to do what you've done. When I get done with it I'll start using it at other articles. Wikipedia's lucky to have it as a source, and you as a contributer. Cheers,--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Arthur Family Edits

I had found this other son of Arthur and had a perfectly legitimate reference, but it was recently deleted. Is there a reason for this? I noticed you also put the site I referenced on external links and said it had "varying reliability." Is this because there is something to show this part or parts of the site in general are wrong? If so, I would like to know as I am doing a lot of research in that area and if the site is bad I don't want to rely on it too much. ---G.T.N. (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King Arthur Peer review

The second peer review is getting a lot of responses. We need your help to take care of the concerns there and get this article to FA! Wrad (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King Arthur

It seems that the article is ready for FAC. Once you come back, drop a note on the talk page and then we can get things started. Mm 40 (talk | contribs) 14:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the instructions at the top of WP:FAC regarding consulting the significant contributors prior to nominating to FAC; since this was already pointed out to you on Talk:King Arthur, I won't copy the text to here again. I've removed the listing from WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy doesn't know what's going on, Hroth. I've left a note with her and she will hopefully see the light. Wrad (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol! thanks :) Assuming I'm allowed, do I renominate or can the other one be returned? cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:King Arthur; (thanks for the vote of confidence, Wrad :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hrothgar cyning, I'm sorry you were caught in the middle of this; I read the talk page and Awadewit had clearly said not to go forward only hours before, so combining that with all of the other info about the other contributors and previous FACs, I made the decision to remove. Qp will surely weigh in within a few hours, and I'll restart after the kerfuffle dies down, so everyone can calm down and you don't have a cloud over the FAC. I'm not sure what time zone you're in, but hopefully this will be sorted by the time you wake up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm re-starting the FAC now, Hrothgar cyning, and I sincerely apologize for the interim events and hope they haven't dampened your enthusiasm; I was possibly overly gunshy on that article because of the previous premature nom last month, and I shouldn't have given Awadewit's talk page comment so much weight in the decision to remove. Thank you for being so gracious in spite of this unpleasantness. Good luck on the FAC, although from what I'm reading, it doesn't appear you'll need it; it appears from subsequent comments that you've made a fine addition to Wiki. Going to restart the FAC now ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it :) I went to sleep and when I awoke, all was fixed :) I should probably have checked more closely on preceding comments and events before nominating. Anyways, hopefully everyone will still be happy to contribute to the FAC and thank you for the confidence in the article's chances! If you get the chance to have a read, I'd appreciate an opinion but will understand if you can't :) Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did nothing wrong, don't even give it a second thought. I will read it as soon as I've had some sleep :-) On my way now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot :) Sleep well, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for rewriting the King Arthur article and making it into such an impressive article. It is a model of concision and comprehensiveness. Covering "everything under the sun about King Arthur" is not easy, but the article provides the reader with an excellent outline of the various Arthurian legends. Awadewit (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Thumb and Arthurian legend

Apart from the two references in the King Arthur article, I'm curious if you know of any other articles or books that mention the Thumb-Arthur connection. I am currently studying eighteenth-century children's literature and Tom Thumb appears in publications for children. I always like learning about these sorts of connections. Awadewit (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Book

I'm fairly new to Arthuriana, but I've been picking it up a lot lately, as well as watching the King Arthur article progress. By the way, good job on that! Anyways, I noticed it mentioned that you are something of an expert and have even written a book on the subject. What's the title and where can I get it? And out of curiosity- where do you think he came from (assuming you think he was real)? ---G.T.N. (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm trying to start a taskforce on Sub-Roman Britain. Would you care to join? ---G.T.N. (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King Arthur FAC

Hi there, just wanted to clear up a "process" issue, since you're new to FAC and in case you were confused by the dialogue. Nishkid64 correctly pointed out that the objection raised was, in fact, a valid and actionable oppose (the previous statement that it was invalid was incorrect), meaning that the oppose relates to WP:WIAFA and is something that can be fixed. That doesn't mean you have to act on it, however; on an issue such as the one raised, dialogue can ensue and consensus can determine whether to act on the oppose. Just wanted to make sure you're clear on the process, not saying one way or the other whether I agree with the oppose, as that is for consensus to decide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks — that does clear it up a bit :) Hmm, maybe I shouldn't have altered it then; on the other hand, Python's film is a notable piece of arthuriana so probably does deserve a name-check and now at least anyone looking can see where it fits into the great scheme of things.... Cheers and thanks again, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get out. As soon as you can. Do something that will get you some real respect in the world, or, at the very least, a job and money. I am personally tired of this place. Wrad (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is evidence that the "th" sound was known to the Greek and Roman world (and known by the various monks) before it was ever used in Welsh. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hrothgar, I think you were right to withdraw from the debates at FAC. In my opinion, it is best now to leave Ottava Rima to oppose if they wish. Whoever closes the FAC will judge whether the case has been made or not. The FAC is going very well and can surely sustain one or two cannonballs bouncing off its bows. qp10qp (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Word up. It is well past the point that any improvements will be achieved by listening to Ottava Rima. It was telling from early on that he gave a "strong oppose" to what has become one of Wikipedia's, or any encyclopedia's, finest articles. Don't let such foolishness get you down.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the very kind sentiments - I'll just say in response that it would never have become such without your encouragement and work :) Any idea how long these FAC things go on for?? cheers Hrothgar cyning (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taskforce

I just put together a page here for the taskforce. I didn't have time to make it very sophisticated, so now it pretty much amounts to an article and participant's list. ---G.T.N. —Preceding comment was added at 02:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: King Arthur

Hi back at you. Now I understand why Thomas Green is cited so frequently in this article. ;-) Most of my knowledge on the topic is based on research I had performed for a historical novel, & which I admit effectively came to an end circa 1992; my defense is that my research was a lot more up-to-date than what others had -- until now. After a few years, I grew tired of the subject & moved to another subject in Wikipedia.

I don't know how far you want contribute here on Wikipedia, but you may want to have a look at some of the other articles in your area of expertise, e.g. Battle of Mount Badon, Historia Brittonum, & some of the articles on the Later Western Roman Emperors. Much of the content of these articles is in effect little changed from what I wrote 4-5 years ago; while I would like to assume that they've been left alone because they're written properly, I know too much about how Wikipedia works to know that it is because there hasn't been anyone who knows the subject contributing to Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Topics

Hi any and all who venture here, I'm looking for a new project i.e. page to work up to FA standard. All suggestions welcome :)

Give the cat another goldfish

		Fist of respect
		I award this fist of respect to Hrothgar cyning for fine work in bringing King Arthur to featured status. qp10qp (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, get that jolly old book done. qp10qp (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Thanks very much, and thank you again for all your work on it too :-) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry; I promoted the article a bit ago (there is a normal delay with the bot that does the final accounting, see WP:FAC/ar). Congratulations !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! - PKM (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Project

Would you want to tackle Dark Ages? It was a Good Article but it's been de-listed. - PKM (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

I am glad that all of your hard work has payed off. I hope you continue to contribute substantially to featured articles. --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 02:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still more congrats

Jumping on the bandwagon, just let me say congratulations for the featured article. It would not have been done without your outstanding work. It is currently one of the best overviews of Arthur offered by any encyclopedia.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words, Hrothgar. I'm also interested to see how the page changes from here on out, and I know Wrad, myself and others will try to make sure the changes are positive. As for Ottava's comments, I'm well past the point of listening to him about his personal nitpicks. As far as I can tell the sandwiching is, as you say, the result of screen resolution. It looks fine on my screen, so I can't tell what he's going on about. The "Further reading" section I went ahead and removed entirely, as all four books that appeared there were already used in the "references" section ("further reading" sections here are usually used to include useful sources that were not cited in the article.) Your name and your book obviously still appear in the article, but no one I've heard has even suggested that there's any conflict of interest or of POV. The article is excellent, and I'm happy to have worked with you on it. Cheers, my friend.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, and thanks for that, I just wanted to make sure we were 100% beyond reproach :) I'm going to be less around for the next few weeks, as I finish off the last two chapters of a book and do the final edits on two articles before sending them back to their journals, but feel free to email me via the address on my webpage if anything comes up etc etc. All the very best, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Hrothgar cyning, are you who I think you are? (TG?) - PKM (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep :-D Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much is now made clear. :-) Thanks for your kind words on Legends; it's semiretired now. - PKM (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck with your book, I can't wait to read it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King Arthur's messianic return

Hey Hrothgar, I know you're a busy man, but if you have a chance can you help me out at King Arthur's messianic return? Some issues regarding the development of Arthur as a Saxon-fighter have come up. Thanks a bunch.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I've made a contribution to try and re-use some of the material in a more legitimate way; how does it look? ok? All the best, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Thomas. It looks much better now, hopefully this will finally convince Enaidmawr. I'll do some polishing work soon to get the article up to concert pitch; I want to get to expanding it as discussed at the talk page soon.

At any rate I hope all is well with you and your research.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]