I reviewed it. Sorry to report that it failed.-- Esprit15d ( talk ¤ contribs) 17:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
An answer has been provided for your question on the Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates page. — BQZip01 — talk 15:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem. WikEd has made such work much easier to do than it once was. Circeus 03:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
Thanks fo your kinds words. I really appreciate your supportiveness of my efforts, -- Cecropia 15:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
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. Cheers Yomangani talk 23:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
No problem; it's a good article. :-) Tony 03:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 replied on my talk page. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 13:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
These are a curse. The tendency was first identified in an otherwise phenomenal IQ test, citation needed 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi! I've addressed some of your concerns, can you take another look? - Mtmelendez ( Talk| UB| Home) 23:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I reviewed it. Sorry to report that it failed.-- Esprit15d ( talk ¤ contribs) 17:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
An answer has been provided for your question on the Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates page. — BQZip01 — talk 15:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem. WikEd has made such work much easier to do than it once was. Circeus 03:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
Thanks fo your kinds words. I really appreciate your supportiveness of my efforts, -- Cecropia 15:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
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. Cheers Yomangani talk 23:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
No problem; it's a good article. :-) Tony 03:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 replied on my talk page. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 13:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
These are a curse. The tendency was first identified in an otherwise phenomenal IQ test, citation needed 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi! I've addressed some of your concerns, can you take another look? - Mtmelendez ( Talk| UB| Home) 23:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)