User talk:Mike Christie/Archive03

RE:GA review of Songs for the Deaf

I reviewed it. Sorry to report that it failed.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Raedwald

Dear Mike, If you would like my reaction, it is that I told it the way I think it was, and you have told it your way! That is your privilege in Wikipedia, provided you don't use me as a reference for things that I haven't said, and can back up the things you want to say!! I realise that may Possibly be my fault for not being clear enough..? I think possibly you have slightly over-egged it with 'context' as the hope of the encyclopedia is by having many articles to reduce repetition of facts to a minimum necessary. It therefore should't be necessary to go into speculation about AEthelbert's motivations in his marriage, for instance, in an article on Raedwald. Each subject has its perameters. I took a lot of care not to overlap more than absolutely necessary between R and Sutton Hoo, for obvious reasons.
My specific comments might interest you, forgive me for listing them thus but it's quicker:

• Sources section 'The Vikings devastated East Anglia... etc) I think this sentence could be left out as it is implied by the previous one. And also, we don't know that it was the vikings who took the books - my point (in the book) is that the absence of the books suggests that they did.
• Anglian Collection - the Wuffing tally is NOT, emphatically, a Regnal List. Nothing of the sort. It is (in the case of the East Anglian list) a genealogical tally e.g. A son of B son of C. There is no guarantee that the names given are always the names of rulers, though it is taken that they are all members of one ruling house. A regnal List is a list of Kings, related or not. If it was a regnal list it would go something like Raedwald, Eorpwald, Sigebert, Ecgric, Anna, Athelhere, etc, but it doesn't, because the '-ing' means son of, and Aelfwald can't be grandson of all four brother-kings. A dynastic tally is a list of descendants. Hence Raedwald is not mentioned because Eni Tyttling was the father of Athelric, father of Ealdwulf - and not because he was or wasn't king. The list in 'Nennius' is a tally which he has mistaken for a regnal list. And as far as his comment about Wehha is concerned, you might as well say it about Wilhelm, Wehha's father, because he makes them into one person.
• Ancestry. Rather than listing it all here it should be removed from this article (apart from the briefest of summaries) and explained in the articles relevant to each of the ancestors.
• Wuffa's reign does NOT begin in 571, he is reigning in 571, having been reigning possibly for some long time before.
• Raedwald's wife - why 'evidently a pagan'. There is no 'evidently' about it, Bede is quite clear on the matter. But what do we mean by 'a' pagan rather than just plain 'pagan'? What, really, do we mean by pagan? Not Christian, wishing to have old customs retained, reinforcing concepts of royal honour etc. I don't think Raedwald was half-hearted at all - please don't make me the authority sfor saying so!!! I think all of his actions were very deliberate, but that he was prevented from (or chose not to) implement an exclusively Christian policy at his 'home' temple. My view is that he knew exactly what he was doing.
• 'Bishopric' at Ely - did I say that? I thought I said that Augustine was associated with a foundation (which might just be a church) at Cratendune, which is near Ely. The bishopric idea links up with something Malmesbury said about Soham and also with the wording of Liber Eliensis. If you are going to quote me (that's up to you), please notice when I have carefully NOT said certain things! otherwise I shall have to keep going through and correcting things, and frankly I haven't the time. My advice to you would be to find other authorities than me for these statements
• Thanks for all the precise footnotes, but also NB my name is Steven with a v.(!)

Sorry if this sounds a bit negative, not meant to be, but just written as seen. I am content - my old article lasted three months! I shan't bother to come back to these now. What I think is in the book Dr Steven Plunkett 19:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted to your version; I left a note at your talk page. Sorry if I annoyed you. Mike Christie (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't revert it to my old version ! Try to work these ideas in and refine it so that it is just sharper and says clearly what it needs to, and is not all one-sided with my view of things... Saw your last note - No I'm not annoyed, and someone was bound to start changing it before long. Please don't think of me or my contrbutions like that, if I sometimes do 'scathe' I do it with a good heart and sense of humour behind it. (irony doesn't travel in emails, have you noticed?) It had been there for a while, and I'm well aware that it contained things which others might agree or disagree with. I wrote the whole series, from Raedwald through to Beorna etc, with a view to their being inter-linked in the information that was given, and I wanted very much to keep Raedwald and Sutton Hoo as two separate things, though obviously closely cross-referencing. No-one owns articles on Wikipedia, though sometimes if an article has been in existence in an accepted form for a long time, it helps if one posts something on the discussion page first before completely rewriting it, as others may be already linking to it etc., and this gives a chance for everyone to have a say, rather than having lots of sudden changes and polarising opinions expressed. The old article definitely did want inline references and it did express a certain amount of opinion. So does your version (in my opinion), but that's no reason why you shouldn't put it in. I think a little bit of opinion or interpretation greases the wheels in these things, otherwise it is just a heap of dry bones and means nothing. I do think what you have done so far is a bit wordy and includes some argument that perhaps belongs best not in this article but in others, with just links or linking words here. i don't mind offering ideas like this but you shouldn't at all feel I am objecting or breathing down your neck about it. I put in what I wanted to, nearly four months ago now, and I hope the article goes on to higher and greater things - truly. That's how it works! Best of luck, Dr Steven Plunkett 20:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay Mike, let's transfer my comments to you above (first ones) to the discussion page on Raedwald and work on this together - we can chat there without clogging up your and my talk pages, and stay in one place. I'm slightly busy for a day or so, but what do you say to that? I don't want to control what you do to it - and can't even if I did want to (but really and truly I don't) - but maybe we could get a version we both liked and move this article (which isn't just ours but everyone's) forward a few steps? We noww have both versions to work with. Interested? Steven. a.k.a. (with a silly handle because there's another User with my name), in Australia, Dr Steven Plunkett 20:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mike, I have just made an initial look at the first three sentences of each version, on the discussion page to the draft. I hope you will look at what I have written and respond with what you have to say about my comments, and if you like with a similar commentary on my original first three sentences so that I can see what it is you don't like about them... I'll keep a lookout so that we can get the discussion going. best wishes, Dr Steven Plunkett 01:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ans

An answer has been provided for your question on the Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Refs

No problem. WikEd has made such work much easier to do than it once was. Circeus 03:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA/B

Thanks fo your kinds words. I really appreciate your supportiveness of my efforts, -- Cecropia 15:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Short FAC

Thought I'd post this here to avoid the FAC talk page becoming a peer review.

I'm all in favour of short FAs; I've being trying to write a very short one myself just to prove the point, but keep finding that they expand when I come down to getting them ready for FA. A quick look through Beyond Fantasy Fiction suggests to me it isn't comprehensive though. The fact it wasn't a commercial success is mentioned in the lead, but not in the article and we don't see any circulation figures, or get to know how the decision to close it down came about. There is some description of the layout but it doesn't really tell us the format of the magazine - how many stories appeared in each issue, did it have themes, did any authors write in every issue or regularly? In the note on the significant stories it says The Philip K. Dick story is included because of Dick's current prominence - why are the others included? What makes them significant enough to mention? This sentence also struck me as odd: The cover art was often surrealist, often seems too wide in scope, with ten issues you could really give numbers or point out those which weren't. I'm sure it could make FA if you can flesh it out a bit or explain in the article why it can't be. CheersYomangani^talk 23:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed comments -- I certainly didn't want it to be a surrogate peer review, and these notes are very useful to me. I'll have a think about them. I appreciate your time on this! Mike Christie (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Co-operation

Hi,

Thanks for the message. I'd be happy to help out on some of the A-S kings. My main interests are in the transition from Sub-Roman to A-S society, and the political and military aspects of the period, I have some knowledge of the religious situation but I wouldn't claim to have a detailed background.

I'm working on the Battle of Waterloo Wiki page and writing a magazine article on an action in the Peninsular War at the moment so my application might be a bit fitful.

Urselius 20:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever time you have would be great. If you'd rather work in review mode, I can point you at stuff I'm working on when it's ready for another pair of eyes; or if you'd rather pick something out and have a go at it, we could talk about what would be useful to work on (I'm thinking Egbert of Wessex needs an overhaul, for example). Or if you'd like to collaborate more actively on an article, we could do that too -- pick one and divide up the tasks. Another useful job would be to identify exactly which kings (of Wessex, if we focus on that) deserve their own article, and which can just be merged into a "minor kings of Wessex" article, or something similar. For example, I think Cerdic needs his own article, just because that's the place to talk about the three ships legend and so on; but several pre-Cædwalla kings don't have enough known about them to warrant a separate article. There are also some related articles that would be useful: an article on the West Saxon Genealogical Regnal List, perhaps, or on the archaeology of the Saxons in general or perhaps the upper Thames Valley in particular. Or placenames; lots of possibilities. Mike Christie (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Some nice copyedits

I saw your cool copyedits to Postage stamps of Ireland. Thanks a lot. Did you know that is a current WP:FAC or were you thinking of jumping in on that here? Cheers ww2censor 22:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; glad you feel they were constructive. Yes, I did know the article was at FAC -- that's how I spotted it. I'm unlikely to take a stance on oppose or support, as I don't have time to fully evaluate the article, but if I get a little more spare time I will try to copyedit the rest. Good luck with the FAC; it looks like a labour of love. I think this is your first FAC; is that right? I've done several, so I'll just say stick with it, and work on what the reviewers find, and you'll get there, even if it takes more than one nom. Good luck! Mike Christie (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Again thanks for the copyedits. I will address the issues you mentioned on the talk page. Indeed it is my first WP:FAC but all the philatelic edits are a labour of love for the time being. I want to get at least one philatelic article to FA if possible then I hope to get some help to translate the German (de: Flugpost) Airmail article because it is a de-FA so that might be a good omen. I have adopted the portal. I would appreciate your view on whether you think the portal is ready to be a featured? Cheers ww2censor 03:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied to FAC comments on my talk page. ww2censor 16:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied again obut on FAC page. ww2censor 02:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Æthelberht

Hello Mike. I've been pretty much invisible lately - real life has kept me occupied. Still pretty busy, but I just wanted to leave a quick note to congratulate you on the wonderful work on Æthelberht. Hurrah! All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Mike, thanks for the kind words. To be honest the acrimony surrounding this RfA has come as a surprise to me. I've worked with WDM most in the anabolic steroid article and come across him again when I reviewed parapsychology for GA. In both article he came across as quite reasonable and, if occasionally a bit argumentative, an editor with promise and a willingness to work with others. Even now, looking at some of these diffs presented as bad behaviour, they don't appear to me to be either very uncivil or irrational. Indeed, his behavior sometimes seems amongst the best on the respective talk pages. However, although some of these oppose votes are clearly based on personal animosity, enough people have serious reservations to make me hesitant to recommend any course of action apart from reading WDM's recent contributions and seeing what you think yourself. All the best Tim Vickers 23:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Saturn

Maybe you can help with some diplomatic skills. In spite of our polite reminders, now Universe is striking through Tony's comments. I don't know what else to do there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

PS, don't want to get tangled up in that, but I just saw Tim's comments above. I've not supported his articles, but I agree in principle with Tim about WDM as an editor. We need more civil admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me think about it -- I'm at work and can't devote any time to it for a while; maybe tonight. Thanks for the note. Mike Christie (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Postage stamps of Ireland

Just a quick thank you for participating in the Postage stamps of Ireland FAC and the kind comments you left on my talk page today. Your input was very useful and I have learned a lot from the process. Whether you raised issues, assisted with some cleanup, opposed or supported the article, thanks again for all you do for Wikipedia. ww2censor 15:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Octavia Butler

Unfortunately this is a school IP address that gets cycled through hundreds if not thousands of computers by the network. Needless to say, it wasn't me who edited the page. Hope it wasn't too destructive.

Nick. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.115.2 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Manzanar

Hi Mike

As I put on IvoShandor's talk page, I started to review this then realised that it was under review. IvoShandor for some reason has his review on a subpage of his user space, User:IvoShandor/Manzanar_GA_review, and it looks as though there have been conversations between him and the nominator of the article as late as 15 June.

Basically, I'm confused, but added the under review tag to warn other users off potentially wasting their time as I did with a review, as it seems to be in hand (if taking longer than it should).

I'll defer to your judgement, but I think I'll steer clear of it!

Thanks for getting in touch,

Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisfow (talk • contribs) 17:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

FAC

No problem; it's a good article. :-) Tony 03:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Egbert of Wessex

I've read this information in different books, but the one I can recall for sure is Kings, Queens, Bones & Bastards by David Hilliam. Sutton Publisihing, 1998. I think that's the data.

Avram Fawcett. August 17, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avram Fawcett (talk • contribs). 19:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Fitzwilliam EMC copyrights

Mike, I have to confess that I am far from certain about this. *If* (and it's a big if) the coins are "two-dimensional works of art", they fall within the scope of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. in the US. In that case, {{PD-art}} is applicable, and they are free content. I believe this to be the case, but IANAL.

If, on the other hand, they are to be considered 3d objects, then the images would be copyrighted and the Fitzwilliam's terms of use prohibit commercial use, so we couldn't use them, except under fair use. I can see fair use being ok so long as we have adequate commentary on the coin in the article. Easy for coins of Offa and Mrs Offa, perhaps not so easy for Egbert. Hope this helps. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

none

Interesting site; I might add it to my 1a page list of references. Unsure now about "none"; I'd still go with the singular in most cases, though. Tony 13:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ine of Wessex

Hi Mike—all done with Ine. I hope it improved the article! I left one inline comment. Also noticed a bit of repetition, although this may have been intentional, e.g. "he introduction to his laws names his advisors, among whom are Eorcenwald, Bishop of London and Hædde, Bishop of Winchester" was mentioned in an earlier section. –Outriggr § 05:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Aldfrith

There should be a ref for every para now. You're right about the "both kingdoms" bit. Either I'll reword it, or remove it. I think I had a ref somewhere suggesting that the Bewcastle Cross was from Aldfrith's reign. Seems to have escaped me for the moment. I have a printed copy of the article for proofreading/copyediting (I find it easier to use paper for that), so plenty work to do still. I still have a few little things I'd might add to Ine, if I can work them in without disturbing the flow. Nothing very exciting though. Bad news on the coins, not that I'm convinced that they are any different from paintings in terms of skill and inventiveness needed to photograph them. I will see if I can find printed images from old books. Second-best, but better than nothing. If you have some time, I'd be interested an outside view of Flann Sinna. Cheers! Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Geography

Just a few opinions.

My tutor at university used to have a saying that to understand the history, we must first understand the geography, which I suppose is why I'm fussing so much about that stuff. I'm dubious about Blair if he cuts Wimborne out of Dorset, which according to histories of Dorset (not that there's proof) was in the new Sherborne diocese, not the Winchester (though it seems that the nunnery may have had some peculiar freedoms from diocesan authority). I believe this is likely because of the geography at Wimborne, which lies across the Stour from old Hampshire (modern maps don't help, because part of Hampshire has been placed in Dorset). The wording is good at the moment, but I would disagree about adding Blair's map.

It must be annoying for you when I raise my eybrows about material perfectly well cited to people like Stenton and Swanton. But I guess my view of Wikipedia citation policy is that verifiability being only the threshold, we should err on the side of caution when sources slightly differ, and find a neutral line.

About Cornwall, it might be worth my saying a word about the geography (I know you're well travelled, but who goes to Cornwall?), which I think reveals how Celtic civilisation held out there so long. It would have been difficult to invade Cornwall across the southern Tamar, which has a huge estuary and lots of tributaries: and then a few miles into Cornwall, you'd be up against another estuary at Looe. Further up the Tamar, the land gets very steep above the river for a long distance, and even as far north as Endsleigh, above the Inny, where the river is shallow, there are steep cliffs on the Cornish side. Further up, the barrier is Bodmin Moor, which is frankly impenetrable. That leaves only a small gap of five or six miles between the northwestern corner of the moor and the sea where an invasion stands a chance. This is where you find ancient defensive mounds and positions. What is startling there is the marked divide between the Cornish and the Saxon place names.

About the Thames. Although the phrase appears in too many books for me to challenge, I'm also uneasy about the expression "north of the Thames". After all, this is a long river, with many phases from trickle to estuary, as well as a section which flows sharply south-south-east, making the "north/south" term less applicable there. The picture of the West Saxons holding the south bank is not quite as likely, for me, as that of the Cornish holding the west bank of the Tamar. There are many signs that the West Saxons didn't hold the eastern end of the Thames at all and that that was where the Mercians made many inroads, to Cirencester, etc. and where the Hwicce were strong. On the other hand, the Berkshire Downs made a good barrier for the West Saxons further east (the battle at Woden's Barrow took place in that range of hills, which suggests they were the defensive barrier), and I believe they had control of both banks and surrounding areas of the Thames in the gap between the Berkshire Downs and the Chilterns. Places like Dorchester-on-Thames, Wantage, and Streatley were clearly key places for them, and I don't believe they would have been regarded as safe places to use as centres if the enemy were on the opposite bank of the Thames there.qp10qp 15:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your tutor was spot on, and I confess my geography is not what it could be, though working on this material has taught me a lot about my native country. With regard to Blair, Wimborne and Dorset, one reservation I might have about agreeing with you is that I am sure I saw a note about "most of Dorset" having been placed in the new see. That might be Blair, too, but it might be referenced, though he's not as thorough about doing that as some of the later writers. I'll see if I can find that. At the moment the article doesn't specify, so I'll leave it until I can find more on this. As for the map, I agree it shouldn't be added if there is doubt about its accuracy, but if we can settle that question, how would you feel? A map of diocesan boundaries might be handy in any number of articles.

No, I'm not annoyed. I try to be the way you once described yourself to me, as one of the "placid" editors. And in any case I really enjoy the chance to learn more about the topic -- I came to this subject with no background and little acquired knowledge (mainly from reading two of Blair's books, Bede, and Asser). I started with Asser because I got interested in him, and decided to do some of the kings as a way of forcing myself to learn the material thoroughly. So the FAC for me is rather like a paper handed in to a group of professors; of course I want an A, but I'm doing it because I want to learn, not because I'm demonstrating that I don't need to learn. So the dynamic for me is a little different than it may be for others -- input on content really helps me learn as well as helps the article.

On Cornwall and the Thames: I take your points, but I want to think about this a bit more (and work my way through the rest of your FAC comments). I'll come back to this after that. I have been to Cornwall, by the way; but it was a long time ago -- I went through at the age of about seven on summer holidays with my family. I was an emmet, I'm afraid. I liked it, but have never been back, though I plan to. Mike Christie (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd better admit here that I'm Cornish. I live on the Camel, five miles from Tintagel, so this is all very sharp to me. Do not expect me to be neutral when we get to King Ecgbert!qp10qp 18:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to answer some points and I seem to have lost some of it somehow. Sounds like an exciting afternoon for you! First respond to pedantry, then buy school uniforms!qp10qp 18:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I just checked a map of the Streatley area. As I thought, the river runs directly north-south there. So there is no south bank there.qp10qp 18:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC) I've just looked at Stenton, and that miscue comes from him. I'm starting to think he didn't get out enough: a healthy walk along the beautiful Thames at Streatley and Goring would have done the old boy no harm.qp10qp 19:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Naturally, if it turns out that Wimborne was in the Winchester diocese after 705, I'd have no problem.qp10qp 18:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just had an enjoyable time looking at Cornish topography on Google maps. I think there's not much to add to the article, though your points about the geography seem well-founded to me. If you have a source that talks at this level of detail about the topography and the implications for deductions from ASC evidence, I think we could add that, but I don't feel comfortable with no secondary source to cite. Re the Thames, I agree again, but here I think Stenton might be excused; it's reasonably common for people to refer to the north or south side of something such as a river or road. I think there's a road in San Francisco -- El Camino Real? -- which is known to the locals as having a logical east and west, despite the fact that in some places (Santa Clara I think) the logical east side is actually to the west of the road. Not to say he shouldn't have got out more, of course. With regard to the barrier: surely the river's a substantial barrier, and a likely boundary, even it it does have loops that leave parts of the territory apparently exposed? After all, at any boundary the other kingdom is near; surely a river is the best thing to have between you and a Mercian. Having said all that, the main problem for me is that I don't see any secondary sources voicing scepticism about the river as a boundary, mainly (I think) because they're all deliberately vague about it. That means I'd rather not voice scepticism in the article. But perhaps it would be good just to weaken the statement that Stenton is sourced for? How about changing that sentence to "It is known that he controlled some of the land south of the river"? That does leave in the "logical" south, though. Mike Christie (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, these were just background meanderings of mine rather than things to mention in the article, which is why they are here and not on the FAC page. The only thing I have a problem with is the term "south bank" in relation to Streatley. The part of the Thames that flows from Oxford to Reading does not support north-south terminology at the microlevel, because the river runs so steeply south there: the divide is surely the Berkshire downs (North Wessex Downs), which stretch into Wiltshire, where Woden's barrow was fought. And for quite a distance: this is not a mild deviation but the heartland of the Thames Valley.qp10qp 13:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The new Christianity stuff is good. I assumed you had left out mention of (the Pythonesque) Bugga for reasons of decorum!qp10qp 13:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Flann Sinna

Mike, very many thanks for the review. I'll need some time to digest everything, but it's great to get your feedback. As far as Aldfrith goes, please edit mercilessly! Thanks again for your help! Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ceol and Ceolwulf

Hi Mike, I didn't know about the merger of these two pages back into Wessex, nor that it had happened so recently - sorry! I reckon they should have their own pages though, for the sake of consistency (every other West Saxon king has his own page). Give me a day or so to see if I can come up with sufficient information on these two to warrant them having their own pages.

Btw I've also made pages for a few other West Saxons as part of filling in the descent from Cynric to Egbert. Hope it's OK. --Mark J 08:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of my hand-made House of Wessex family tree? Mark J 21:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Pricing of used magazines

It's generally not useful to list information about the value of old copies of, say, Beyond Fantasy Fiction in the articles about the 'zines. The information is not only ephemeral but irrelevant to the magazine itself. (And I say that as a sometime dealer myself.) --Orange Mike 01:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right; unless it's to highlight truly remarkable prices (as in the price of "Junkie", highlighted in Ace Books). I added this as part of a response to some comments at the article's FAC, but I think on looking again at the request that it does not answer the reviewer's question properly. (And I've done some magazine dealing myself too.) Mike Christie (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-renewal of copyrights

I replied on my talk page. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Bones

First the good news: I found the book, and the ref is: David Hilliam, Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards: Who's Who in the English Monarchy from Egbert to Elizabeth II, Sutton, pp. 114 (photos with caption), 180–183. ISBN 0750935537. The bad news is that, in my opinion, it's not the sort of book a good Wikipedia article should be referencing—utterly unacademic and credulous. The strand of Wikipedia policy I'd use to reject it would be the advice to use the "best sources" (verifiability by a published source being only a threshold). I found a small few other references to this, mostly in similarly "not best" sources". The closest I could come to a ref from a relatively usable source was in the Oxford Illustrated History of the British Monarchy, by John Cannon and Ralph A. Griffiths, Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 656, ISBN 0192893289: "The bones of all these monarchs were placed in mortuary chests in 1525 and are still in the choir. Four of the six chests were destroyed in the Civil War and the bones scattered around the Cathedral. These were replaced in new chests in 1661" (they say nothing more specific: Ecgbert is not named, but I assume he is one of the monarchs). Some nineteenth-century books on Google Books (for example, this one) give details about the contents of the chests, but the absence of this information from modern books is cause for grave suspicion. One is anyway addressing a series of unlikelihoods, the first being that the bones are those of the Anglo-Saxon kings at all, given the great passage of time. The fact that the bones are incomplete, muddled, and unidentifiable may owe as much to damage and loss before being disinterred as to any Civil War soldiers. They had also been re-chested and labelled in 1525: how likely are those 1525 labels to be correct? Another layer of difficulty arises from the bias of Restoration accounts of the Civil War. One also wonders what happened to the bones between being scattered (if indeed they had been) and being reburied in 1661 after the Restoration. Nevertheless, there is certainly material to be found that can go in the article: an Ecgbert chest with an inscription undoubtedly exists, and that's worth a mention in itself, of course, without any need to presume its genuineness. My suggestion would be to stick as closely as you can to how the best Anglo-Saxon historians comment on Ecgbert's death and burial. They know the game far better than the authors of illustrated histories for the general public; what they leave out, we should leave out, I believe.qp10qp 13:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I notice the infobox says that Egbert died in Cornwall. It doesn't say as much in the ASC, so unless there's some late Welsh source for it, I doubt that's tenable.qp10qp 16:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Raedburgh

As far as I can make out, the origins of this information are very obscure, stemming back to a medieval manuscript at Trinity College, quoted by W. G. Searle in Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Kings, and Nobles, London, 1899, p 343, as "MS Trin Coll 0xf x". There is no Anglo-Saxon source for Egbert's wife, as far as I can see, and I don't know the date of Searle's manuscript (post-conquest, I guess). Apparently, she is described in the document as regis Francorum sororia—no mention of Charlemagne (could just as well be his successor, Louis). Sororia seems to mean "sister-in-law", in which case, she would not be the sister of the king (regis) but of the king's wife. Once again, I suggest sticking to the material you can find in the best Anglo-Saxon history books, because this stuff is obscure and iffy, to say the least; I would copy the respected historians' way of mentioning this queen, if they mention her.qp10qp 14:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Bruno Maddox at FAC

If you have a moment would you mind reviewing my article on the novelist/popular science writer Bruno Maddox? It's currently at FAC.-BillDeanCarter 14:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I posted some notes; hope they help. I don't feel expert enough to comment at FAC, I'm afraid; I'll keep an eye and may comment later. I do think the article's in pretty good shape. I did a few copyedits; hope they're useful too. Mike Christie (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments about the Maddox article. I think for your article on Beyond Fantasy Fiction you should separate the section 'History and significance' into two sections. One being 'History' and the other 'Reception'. The 'Reception' section is really the section people will be looking for. Best of luck with the continuing FAC.-BillDeanCarter 11:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge -- I went ahead with the split, and actually found one source, so I added that too. Good luck on yours, too; I'm still watching it and will try to find time to comment at FAC. Mike Christie (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Egbert's coinage

Mike, the Akerman book I got the Aldfrith image from has nothing on Egbert. You can read the relevant parts of Blackburn & Grierson's Medieval European Coinage on Google books, roughly pp. 283-290 (search for Egbert). It has nothing very exciting to say. So, not much luck yet, but I'll keep looking. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There are some esoteric references at History of the English penny (c. 600-1066) which may be of use if you can find someone with access to JSTOR, MUSE, or the like (not me, sorry). Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Asimov signature in Beyond Sep 1953.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Asimov signature in Beyond Sep 1953.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Textus Roffensis

Are you sure of the location? I would have said 'Local Studies Centre- Strood' as in reference below. http://www.bl.uk/about/cooperation/workpublib.html

Anyway digitisation is good news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 12:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't be sure -- I'm just quoting the location from the source I scanned it from. That's nearly twenty years old now, so it could easily have changed -- if you can be sure, please change the description. The page you link to says "Medway Libraries", though, doesn't it? I would guess that's the name of the overall library system which catalogues it. Mike Christie (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Homonym errors

These are a curse. The tendency was first identified in an otherwise phenomenal IQ test, when I was seven. 'You're' and 'your'? I fuck them up constantly. I can't not. But I'm always slightly embrassed. Marskell 21:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has their Achilles' heel; I think I have several. Some of mine come from having lived decades on both sides of the Atlantic; sometimes I can't remember which usage is US and which is British. Anyway, glad you didn't mind the fix. Mike Christie (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Eadbald

Nice work with Eadbald (as usual!). To keep it company, I've started revising his neice ("a living symbol of Edwin's Christianising initiatives" no less). Aren't you going to put Egbert up for GA/peer review/FA, or are you waiting to add the numismatic stuff? Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had asked qp10qp, who is a terrific reviewer, if he'd be interested in taking a look at Egbert; I don't want to nag him so I won't ask again, but I also wanted to give him a while in case he gets time. It would certainly help the article. If I don't hear from him in the next three or four days I'll probably put it up at FAC, maybe after scanning for another copyedit. I don't think I'm going to get to the numismatic material, and I hope it won't be regarded as necessary, though I'd understand if a reviewer felt it was.

One issue with the numismatic stuff is that the references in the books are to long articles in the British Numismatic Journal; I can't find a a good survey text that would deal with the coinage at the right level for these articles. If you have a recommendation to make (or know someone who would know) I think I'd spend the money to get the right book. The other area I could do with a good recommendation is on the religious history of the period: something that would focus on Alcuin, Bede, Theodore, Wilfrid, and so on. Any suggestions?

Thanks for the compliments on Eadbald. As you may be able to tell, I've been looking at the extended argument Kirby makes about the chronology of the early years of his reign. Very interesting stuff, and I find it quite convincing. I'm going to have to frame it quite carefully, though, because I don't think the reader wants all the details, but the resulting chronology is quite dramatically different, with a five or six-year pagan interregnum. So I'm still working on that. Anyway, please comment as you see fit.

I'll watch Eanflæd too, and I look forward to seeing your results. Personally I like taking my articles all the way to FA, though; it's a pleasant motivator. I think you have at least a couple that are getting close -- Aldfrith, of course, and Flann Sinna was in pretty good shape too. I seem to recall others of yours on Northumbrian kings that were darn good too. I'd be happy to lend whatever copyediting skills and reviewing time you need if you're interested. It would be great to get, say, all the major kings of one kingdom up to FA. Mike Christie (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Something for you

I hereby award you the WikiChevrons for your outstanding work on Anglo-Saxon history. Kirill 02:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that you're the person responsible for the large number of thoroughly excellent articles on Anglo-Saxon rulers that I've been seeing for the past few months, and wanted to express my admiration; your writing has been nothing short of extraordinary. :-) Kirill 02:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on the promotion of your article Egbert of Wessex. I really enjoyed reading the article; your writing is excellent. If you submit any other similar articles for FA consideration, feel free to ping me on my talk page and I'll be happy to offer an opinion. I noticed on your user page that you live in Austin - I lived there for five years and still miss it after two years away. It's a wonderful city, so be sure you appreciate it properly ;) Karanacs 16:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I am working my way through the Anglo-Saxon kings and hope to have Eadbald of Kent ready before too long, so I will be happy to drop you a note when I nominate it. Yes, I like Austin too, though I'm not a native -- been here 18 years now. It's still too hot, though -- I miss British raininess. Mike Christie (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Beyond Fantasy Fiction

Can I suggest you ask Raul to restart the FAC and I'll happily be the first to chime in if you nudge me. --Dweller 13:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hate to ask for that -- he may restart it himself, though, of course. If not, I'll resubmit it myself after a month has gone by, and I'll nudge you then. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Æthelbald of Mercia

Just to say I'll try to clean up the notes in this article today. Oh, and congrats o your latest FA! Circeus 17:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the congratulations and for the cleanup; I have now switched over to your style of citing, and I think it's definitely better. It's certainly easier on the eyes when scanning the text of a reference-strewn paragraph. Thanks also for the helpful comments and the support at FA. Mike Christie (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Your articles are a joy to work with, actually. When there are dozens of (sometimes incomplete, inconsistent, or both) references to fix and convert to templates, that's when it gets fiddly. Circeus 01:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the congrats. Hopefully the Bruno Maddox article will help other short articles pass at FAC. I've been following Beyond 's progress as well. The article really has flourished and following the copyright issues on the mag artwork has been interesting. The article definitely deserves FA in my opinion. Best, BillDeanCarter 03:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello. This is a group thanks to all of you for your many comments and help in making the Bruno Maddox article reach FA. All the copyedits really helped polish up the article. I hope to work with you all once again. Best of luck on your own projects, BillDeanCarter 00:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Eadbald

Looking good! There seems to be a clause missing from the end of the first sentence of the second paragraph: "Eadbald's influence was less than that of his father, but Kent was sufficiently powerful to be omitted from the list of kingdoms dominated by Edwin of Northumbria, though Edwin's marriage to Eadbald's sister, Æthelburh." Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Budrys equals Bradbury?

Hi Mike, I noticed that, in the Miller quote, he mentions a "Budry".. maybe I'm wrong but it seemed to me that it's probably meant to mean Bradbury. just wanted to point it out so you could double check. See ya, Johnnyw talk 18:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's correct -- the writer is Algis Budrys, who was quite active back then. Thanks for checking though (and thanks for the support). Mike Christie (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

FACs

Thanks for the advice! I think we've done so much work on Leonardo it would be a pity to withdraw it, and the Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes looks like a goer, so I might just withdraw the rest for the time being. There's been some very good suggestions and some enthusiastic edits. Amandajm 17:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Authentic Science Fiction

Given this one a once over. You might want to look at the few HTML comments I left. I'm afraid I couldn't really do much for Beyond Fantasy Fiction, though. As a (young) fan of Sheckley, Asimov and Silverberg, I have to say those are fascinating tidbits of the history of sf. Circeus 01:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it regarding the currency.I'm just not used to such a formatting, I guess.

As for the "(young) fan", I just couldn't find a more concise way to explain, so the confusion is my fault, but I did mean that I'm too young (23) to have been familiar with the magazine era (and sf magazines were never very present in French Canada. I think only one, Solaris, ever achieved any prominence.)

Personally, I'm a fan of 80s and 70s paperback art. The French sf publishers put out some great stuff in that area. Circeus 15:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico

Hi! I've addressed some of your concerns, can you take another look? - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 23:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Participate or mediate

A little of both, perhaps. We need a dispassionate situation—if suggestions on changing GA are only to be greeted with "you're insulting us," nothing will happen. I understand that a procedure to discuss why we have too much procedure seems odd, but the structural redundancy is a serious issue. I will draft something and show you. Marskell 11:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Content review/workshop. I had intended the VP thread to move in this direction. One by one. Let's start with something people aren't emotionally invested in: is "B Class, importance mid" essentially useless? Just more talk page clutter? Marskell 12:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not the right way to proceed. Let Mike set up what he has in mind when he gets back from his trip. For this to work, patience is needed, not a softer target. As for these loaded questions, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team might have a different point of view, as might the many WikiProjects who use these classifications to track progress and prioritise effort. Geometry guy 18:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'll see about putting a page together; I'll also post to Marskell's talk page to make sure we're in sync. Mike Christie (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I don't want is simply open-ended talk threads. We can just continue discussing at the village pump, if that's the case. I went through it with ATT—if you don't delineate your targets then people are talking about ten things at once and megs of talk get wasted. It won't be a small group, or at least won't remain so. Trolls will come; people will oppose the first thing they see for the sake of opposing.

Some content has arrived on the page so I don't want to just chuck it. But feel free to do with it as you please. What, generally, did you imagine for a method? I was thinking a statement of principle / suggested implementation model. Marskell 06:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Mike, I just lost a half hour reply on a bloody hotel room connection (I'm now in the lobby) so I'm going to abbreviate (this isn't bullet-to-bullet).

• Small group models lack legitimacy in inplementing changes. If people think something big is to be changed but they haven't been solicitied for comment, they'll oppose reflexively. If something big is to be changed, Jimbo not knowing is also a recipe for wasted time. Relatedly, I have no problem delegating authority but it should be informal. You don't want, two months down the road: "why are you deciding consensus?"
• My principal thought to identify reform is increasingly specific statements of principal. "PR does not work in practice." Yes --> "PR should be scrapped." No --> "PR should be handed to the projects." OK. (As an example.) And then you put it on the shelf for an implementation phase and move on to the next general point. I am not anti-strawpoll, where properly constructed. This will not work on an open thread, post-me-your-mini-essay basis. It will require polling to specify points.
• I disagree with Guy about soft targets. We should start with soft targets because it will build confidence people can work together. The GA-FA redundancy is the hardest target, and should be saved for last.
• "Create a list of all the content review methods." Yes, certainly. And we don't even need to wait on that. If you have a wikignome in mind, ask (maybe SandyGeorgia). Without doubt, there's review processes I don't even know exist.

Assuming the page I created is just brainstorming for now, why not list the review processes underneath Cashman's points. Cheers, Marskell 21:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, why don't you cut all of what's on the page now to talk, as it's a jumble, and post something else? I'm not bothered. Although think of it still in brainstorm mode--people can add hidden questions or alternate wording. "... I suspect it would be valuable to look at all the content processes together." If that means "solve" all of the content processes together, I'm not with you. Of course, we'll be talking about how they intersect, but there needs to be compartmentalization as we go through things ("right now we're focussed on PR" etc.). It will be too messy to try and fight of all of the fires at once. Cheers, Marskell 15:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this, Mike. I agree with Marskell that cutting to talk would be a good way to make a fresh start. I'd also like to remind you of the nice discussion we had several months ago. I also think Jayron32 might be a good person to involve in this, as he's an experienced GA editor with a cool head. Geometry guy 07:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the one, sorry for the confusion. I partly mentioned it because I remembered Steve Baker was another person who has good insights into article assessment. Geometry guy 14:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Content Review page

I'm very interested in participating, however, I hope it can proceed into constructive brainstorming as opposed to pointless debates over ridiculous and impossible proposals that make no sense, considering what this idea spawned from. Lara❤Love 04:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm in, and I hope this goes well. Considering Marskell's insistence on having something are absurd as "Despite the various processes there is still no process that explicitly recognizes good, short articles that are unlikely to grow," I foresee conflict, and I'm just not in the mood or the right health to deal with that. Considering a large majority of GAs are shorter articles and many of the GA reviewers have pointed out that we have listed GAs that most likely will never become FA, I really see it pointless to try to debate it further. With that said, I'll be keeping an eye on the page and commenting with the golden rule in mind. I should note, however, that I have acute bronchitis and fear where it is going. I'm off work this weekend, but may be resting in hopes of recovering from this. Lara❤Love 03:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Review workshop

OK, I cut some of it—my specific points and Cashman's bullets—to a brainstorming page. I incoporated my general points into your list. Not sure what "This is too broad a definition, though, since many other things go on that also have this goal" means, however. In any case, I think the page is fairly crisp and lays out the right first steps: identify the actual processes and discuss the scope, to begin. Marskell 18:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you'll see it when you're back on-line, but there's now a lot of interesting ideas floating around the talk page. Marskell 10:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Eardwulf

Hello Mike. If you get some time, could you have a look at Eardwulf of Northumbria? I've updated it with Rollason's Oxford DNB article. I expect I can add a good bit more on the Carolingian link (compare to Eadberht Præn and Ecgberht of Wessex). I can produce a map of the places mentioned in the text, and may be able for find something to show "Saint Hardulph"'s tomb at Breedon. Anything you can see? Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Mike, thanks for the great work. I've asked Dr Plunkett if he knows of any old books with images of the Breedon church - I recall a reference to a sarcophagus somewhere, probably in his article in The St Andrews Sarcophagus - which would do for a main image. I can bodge up a map easily enough. I'll get to work on addressing the comments you left on the talk page. Thanks again! Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are nice maps! One like that would be great (if you'd be able to do one). Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to label Wales and Scotland, the map is perfect as-is. I am still vaguely hopeful of finding an image. Dr P. thought there wasn't much chance of an old one, but perhaps I can prod someone into going and taking a picture. Failing that, this may be a case where fair use would be possible. Thanks again! And now, back to adding pictures to Category:Villages in the East Riding of Yorkshire for me! Thrilling stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Eardwulf anew

Dear Mike, I have added a sentence or so about the Breedon sculptures and the poss identification with Eardwulf to this article, and have also just made the statement that he is buried at Breedon somewhat more indefinite. This is not an uncommon type of name and one does have to make allowances for the possibility that there was some other St Eardwulf/Hardulf of whom we know nothing more than the dedication, however attractive the hypothesis may seem. I hope that is okay with you. This sees to be a really useful article and I'm glad you are finding such productive fields of endeavour! I will look among my slides to see if I can find a pic of that sarcophagus panel, but it is not easy right now (Angus asked me today). If I can find something useable I'll install it. The frieze sculptures however would be inappropriate, it is the saints under arcades that are relevant here. Different date, different sculptors. Best wishes, Steven, aka Dr Steven Plunkett 23:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for note! I only moved that sentence, not wrote it: I don't know where that information about the date comes from, so I shifted it out from before that reference. atb, Dr Steven Plunkett 05:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The date is in all manner of saint-cruft on the web, but I'm still looking for a decent source.

I'll add some more to Wiglaf as I treated myself to a copy of Brown & Farr's Mercia: an Anglo-Saxon kingdom in Europe. Semi-related, Midland History is available here for the present at least. There are a few Anglo-Saxon articles that may be of interest to you. Get them while you can! All the best! Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems, based on Google books, that Francis Wormald (I wonder if he was a relation of the late, brilliant, and unfortunate Patrick, some of whose books I now own), English kalendars before A.D. 1100, has the 21 August date. That was reprinted in 1988 and the National Library here has a copy. I'll wander across on Saturday and confirm that this is really what it says. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)