User talk:Mike Christie/Archive04

WP:WBFAN

I noticed that in the conversation about peer reviewing, you mentioned you look at WP:WBFAN and are attempting to move up on it. I have to admit that I also look at the list and am also attempting to move up it. Competition can be a healthy thing, sometimes. I wondered, though, if you have clicked on the usernames of the top twenty people listed there. I did one day when I was sick and I noticed that many of them are inactive or have left wikipedia. I think that this is another problem that needs to be addressed - how can wikipedia retain its good editors? I take it as bad sign that so many of these editors are not active. (By the way, do you want to have gentleperson's agreement to review each other's articles at FAC? I hate soliciting reviews from people, as it looks like soliciting votes, and you always do a good job of calmly and thoughtfully reviewing articles. A thought.) Awadewit | talk 06:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

that discussion page thingie

Hi! :-)

Your recent post about.. "automation..it's important to show.. a particular potential reviewer hasn't edited" .. umm isn't it in the wrong thread? Should be in the automation thread... I'm sorry to be such a PITA :-) nitpicking.. but that page is becoming illegible... plus also see my strong disagreement (offered respectfully, and not directed at you personally) with your opinion...

later! Ling.Nut 03:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to respond to MF's query, above my post; maybe I should have just left it. Do you think I should move it? I think the automation piece of it is mostly irrelevant, but not completely -- a process so tedious that it's only tolerable if automated can't be implemented if you don't automate it. And no, you weren't offensive at all; your opinion was expressed strongly but quite impersonally.

The trouble is that often what looks like a good idea starts to look difficult when you get down to the details. I do think we have to go right down to the level of what edits a reviewee does, in what order, and where, and what the instructions will say, or we haven't done the hard part. And when we do that, we may find that somewhere in there is something that could benefit from automation. But I'm totally fine with dropping that question until someone else raises it. The main thing, to me, is that we do seem to be coming closer to a consensus on a very difficult topic. It gives me some hope we can make further progress in the future. Mike Christie (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hope is a Good Thing.

I dunno if you wanna refactor your comments or not; I was just saying that the page is becoming quite confusing. :-)

I think the atomation issue is def. a secondary one. That's my opinion. other things can come first. But there is a list.. a brainstormed list.. and it makes no reference to priorities.. so whatever needs a comment can get one ;-)

I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think I've ever talked with you before. Nice to meet you. :-)

later! Ling.Nut 03:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice to meet you too. I've seen positive comments about your contributions; aren't you the editor who did all the work on Georg Cantor? I heard a lot of good things about that. Mike Christie (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Lotsa people worked on Cantor; Geometry guy and Trovatore spring immediately to mind. But yeah, I did too. :-) Later! Ling.Nut 14:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Anno Domini

This is a FA candidate; I'm not very impressed, looking at it; but you can probably comment with more precision off the top of your head. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look; the subject is one I'm interested in. However, you may have been misled by some of my FAs -- I have never studied history, and have been constructing the Anglo-Saxon king FAs out of fresh research each time, rather than out of a background in the topic. I will see if I know enough to comment constructively on this one. Thanks for the note. Mike Christie (talk) 10:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiglaf

I liked your map of Mercia. Could you perhaps upload it, together with the ASC-entry, at commons so other wiki-languages can also use it? Cheers. Ekki01 16:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I have a commons account; I'm pretty sure I've uploaded at least one image. I agree this would be good to do with all the images I've uploaded, though actually I don't think this one is the best choice, since that particular picture is not really usable in lots of other articles. Anyway, I agree it's something I should put on my list to do. No promises about when, unfortunately; I don't have enough time on-wiki as it is. They're public domain, though, so if someone needs them on commons they can put them there. Thanks for the note -- Mike Christie (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that commons as far as I know does not accept public domain. If you don't mind I'll upload them giving them a GNU-licence. Ekki01 19:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. Check my image upload log; there are a few others - manuscript pages and so on. Thanks for any you upload. Mike Christie (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

I apologize, but I'm not going to be able to participate in the workshop to revise PR, GAC, and FAC anymore. I am just much too busy to keep up with it and I feel like I have to repeat myself all of the time - the effect of communicating exclusively through prose and people coming and going, etc. I'm terribly sorry. I feel like such a bad citizen. I will certainly comment on your proposal when you bring it to the wider wiki-community. Again, please accept my apologies. Awadewit | talk 03:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Stalled, slightly

Hi Mike. After gaining some good, quick consensus on the things we might do with PR, I wonder if we're stalled slightly in going over the minutiae of templates and whatnot. What do you think? I don't want to lose the momentum; perhaps we can come up with "half-specific" points ("in general, a template/bot will transclude to the PR page; details later") and keep moving. I'll say that this has proceeded with civility and generated sensible commentary. Marskell 21:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree; not sure on the right next step, but I think we need to try to take it step by step, while not making those steps so small it doesn't seem like we're making progress. I'll make some process oriented suggestions on the page and see how that goes. Mike Christie (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the jumpstart, Mike. I was feeling guilty for coming to this so late, while frustrated at not knowing where to start :-) I'm halfway through the talk page and I think I'm getting the hang of it. Something always come through loud and clear to me; the GA folk are absolutely convinced some animosity exists or that we are all consumed with infighting between the processes (IMO, it's more like FA barely acknowledges GA, although they are recently doing some good work). I just don't see that infighting between the two consumes time. There are inroads now as many of us have personally breached the gap and made friends "on the other side", so hopefully that issue will be lessened. Some of the conversation so far doesn't seem to have focused on process enough, but has been helpful to start bringing the groups together. Back to trudging through the catching up, Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

oh my gosh, Mike, I'd better stop. I didn't get through the entire talk page. The proposals are entirely driven by GA participants wanting to imitate the GA process, and to put it as politely as possible, the top-heavy, fragmented, categorized, complicated GA process has not been a stunning success. I don't know what to say next; I was quite stunned to see overwhelming support for processes that don't address the core problems -- the need to make it *easier* to encourage more reviewers. Honestly, I do PR in my spare time because it's fun -- am I the only weirdo ?? If PR imitates GA, it will be anything but fun, and I'll run the other way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, let me finish reading the talk page first. I got discouraged and stopped. Maybe it gets better :-) Give me some time to finish getting through it all first. Another big problem is that Gimmetrow isn't fully available right now; I don't want to leave a message on his talk page at this time, perhaps in a week from now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Finished. Perhaps I should bow out, Mike, rather than create divisiveness after so much work. I thoroughly recognize the increase in quality in GA lately, and respect the hard work done by many good editors there, but I'm afraid the process so far is simply replicating the least successful elements of GA, rather than doing something to make PR easier and to encourage more reviewers. I hate to be the only person raining on the parade; maybe you all can make it work, and I should shut my mouth, but it would be wise to consult Gimmetrow. The GA folk, as a group, haven't yet figured out how to maintain articlehistory, and this would take exactly the part where they make the errors and do the same for PR. I've been wrong before :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

GO SOX !!! (It's slightly embarrassing, though :-) Anyway, I feel awful for raining on the parade; will re-think everything tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Cubs and Jays next year (all the boys here say, yea, right :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Mike, is it OK if we consolidate and keep the rest of the conversation in one place, on my page where you started it? I respnded there (and I removed my Sox comment per 86-year tradition and superstition :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Still rough, but ready for your review: User:SandyGeorgia/Content review thoughts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Mike, since the essay hasn't yet generated a large amount of either concern or interest, it's probably not worth taking your time on. Onward and upward, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing PR

Hi Mike. As the workshop talk page has clearly stalled over the last five days, I have taken the plunge and brought up one of the suggested changes on PR itself. The categories seemed the least controversial to me. PR talk is quite dead (which tells you something) so I'm notifying multiple people to generate comment. Cheers, Marskell 08:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The suggested direction would be to find a volunteer to do the bot programming, particularly on PR. It really is positively weird that it's still archived manually. Gimmetrow is the obvious candidate but already does so much. Can you think of anyone else? Marskell 18:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Dr pda (talk · contribs) or Rick Block (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, while I have greater than average technical wiki-expertise, creating a bot is beyond my current experience :) Also I'm not sure if I have the time to be regularly running it (I'm just about to start a new job). Hope you find someone who is able to do it. Dr pda 08:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiggy

I keep meaning to review Wiglaf but other things crop up all the time. I should get to it in the next couple of days. I feel guilty for always pushing it to the bottom of my list, but, as you know, just one fact check with an Anglo-Saxon article takes hours, so it's daunting. qp10qp 12:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go at making that paragraph more digestible. I haven't looked at the sources, and it's probably a gross simplification. Use or discard anything from it as you see fit:

Wiglaf's ancestry is not known for certain. There are two main theories. One is that descendants of different lines of the royal family competed for the throne. In the mid-7th century, for example, Penda had placed royal kinsmen in control of conquered provinces. A Wigheard who witnessed a charter in the late 7th century was possibly a member of this line. The other main theory is that a number of kin-groups with local power-bases may have competed for the succession. The sub-kingdoms of the Hwicce, the Tomsætethe, and the unidentified Gaini are examples of such power-bases. Marriage alliances could also have played a part. Competing magnates, those called in charters "dux" or "princeps" (that is, leaders), may have brought the kings to power. In this model, the Mercian kings are little more than leading noblemen.

qp10qp 13:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm copyediting this. I prefer using parentheses to "X said...; see X, Foobar, pp.", but if you disagree, tell me and I'll revert those. Circeus 13:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no preference. Thanks for the help on this; I really appreciate the work you do. Mike Christie (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I left a few html comments. If DNB was actually consulted online, it might be better to note it as such, as I seem to recall the online version may include material not in the paper version.Circeus 14:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Literature proposal

Hey! Awadewit recommended you to me as someone who may be interested in the new Literature wikiproject. The proposal for the project is here. Please consider joining. Wrad 00:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dearest Mike Christie,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your kind words of support are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow and Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.

Lara❤Love 06:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Credits: This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks which was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

thank you

I didn't think anyone would ever get around to copyediting this. Pandacomics 00:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Check it out

Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers. I suppose I'm becoming desparate to get something done but I think this could easily work. I've started a thread regarding it on the workshop talk. Marskell 12:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Coin images revisited

Hello Mike. There are some Anglo-Saxon coin images - admittedly not so great - which definitely seem PD in Grueber's Handbook. See Image:Memorial penny (not during his reign) of Edmund the Martyr.jpg. In the "flip book" they are at around page 300. I am going to try the DjVu and PDF images to see if I can get better results from those that the jpeg's in the flip book. Cheers! Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fostering

Hello Mike. The long-awaited Alex Woolf book Pictland to Alba is out at last, and I hope to have a copy next week. Between incorporating this into Wikipedia articles, and the huge amount of work to be done on Irish stuff using the Oxford DNB as a source, I don't think I'll have much time to work on Anglo-Saxon England in the near future.

So, I was wondering if you'd like to adopt Eardwulf and Aldfrith? Perhaps they can be added to your growing collection of successful Featured Article nominations! Let me know what you think, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Your plan sounds good to me!

Northumbrian sources, well none are ideal.

• The stuff in Farmer & Webb, The Age of Bede, is all available on the web I think.
• I wouldn't have bought The World of Bede if it had cost the 38 dollars for a paperback that Amazon are asking. I think it was less than that for the hardback.
• Higham's Kingdom of Northumbria is, for want of a better term, a serious coffee-table book. Wonderful illustrations, and a good read, but not much in the way of footnotes. His Convert Kings and English Empire are rather more useful in that they have proper notes and references.
• Yorke's Conversion of Britain is good.
• Ann Williams's book is a rather short general survey. I think I must have bought it along with something else.
• Charles-Edwards's Early Christian Ireland is wonderful, but hardly cheap and not so relevant to A-S England.
• The Gannon material came courtesy of Google books.
• Colin Ireland's stuff someone else found.
• For a general survey, Rollason's Northumbria, 500-1100: Creation and Destruction of a Kingdom is probably the most serious effort. The paperback only just appeared and I haven't got round to buying it yet.
• Moisl's article ("The Bernician royal dynasty and the Irish" in Peritia, volume 2) would be nice to see. It makes the case for Ecgfrith's 684 attack on Brega being directed against a Picto-Irish alliance supporting Aldfrith. To be honest, I don't find the argument very convincing from what I understand of it, but it would be worth looking into.
• Fraser's book is really more relevant to Ecgfrith.

Did I miss anything? If there's any excerpts you want scanned just let me know.

I've sent you an email. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Other than the Vikings - and as you say, nothing specific is known from Eardwulf's reign - and the Campbell point I added to the talk page - but this may be better addressed in the articles on Moll and the other kings whose deposition is better recorded - I can't think of anything. If Dr P ever finds a picture, we can add it, if not, then someday I may be near Breedon and can take one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've had several goes at addressing Awadewit's last point. I think I've finally got a form of words that explains things as well as can be expected without leaping off into novel synthesis territory. Can you have a look and see how it reads? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Map

Image:British seventh century kingdoms.gif is pretty close to what Awadewit wants. If you can just move Strathclyde a little bit, and add Dal Riata, it would be perfect. So something like Image:(Mod) British seventh century kingdoms.gif. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Edmund the Martyr

You may be interested in this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Edmund the Martyr. DrKiernan 14:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves

By the order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of your outstanding work on Anglo-Saxon military history, including the production of numerous featured articles. For the coordinators, Kirill 02:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kirill; I really value this. I don't keep an awards page, so I won't preserve it, but I will remember it. Thank you. Mike Christie (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Red Cliffs

Hi Mike, my poor FAC Battle of Red Cliffs is languishing with little comment (and...let's say "relatively new editors" are over-represented among those commenting). Would you mind taking a look and comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Red Cliffs? Feel free to Oppose if you want to; I'm not convassing for votes. Thanks! --Ling.Nut 14:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Eadwulf

Had another look. It's a lot better, butt still a few things that are a bit odd. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ine's laws and the English

I have finally had a chance to check for a secondary reference to the significance of the use of the term "English" in Ine's laws, which we discussed on my talk page a few weeks ago. The reference is as follows:-

Patrick Wormald, "Bede, the Bretwaldas and the Gens Anglorum", in Patrick Wormald, The Times of Bede - studies in early English Christian society and its historian (Oxford 2006), pp. 106-34, at p. 119

Incidentally, this page also refers to some other seventh or early eighth century uses of "English" by Saxon or Jutish writers as a collective term for the Germanic peoples of Britain, such as in the writings of St Boniface and in Eddius's Life of St Wilfrid.

Wormald does mention in a note the possibility that the text of the laws had been altered between Ine's time and Alfred's - no indication that it had been, just a recognition of the possibility.

Zburh (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I don't have that, and it's not available on Google Books, so I can't see the original article. However, based on your description of it during our earlier conversation, is there material there that you feel is worth adding to the Ine article? I was thinking perhaps a short paragraph either before or after the current last paragraph in the laws section, making the point Wormald makes (and supported however he supports it) that the use of "Englisc" is significant. Perhaps just before the current last paragraph; then the use of "English" in that paragraph would be clearer in its implications. If Wormald presents the idea as speculative, or original with him, however, perhaps it would be better to put the comments into a footnote from the use of "English". What do you think? Mike Christie (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's slightly tricky. The context is a single paragraph briefly describing the various passages from English writers predating Bede's Ecclesiastical History which display a sense of that collective identity and their use of "English" as the term for it, without going into much discussion of individual instances. With regard to Ine's laws specifically Wormald simply states that the text uses this terminology and flags up the fact that this was a Saxon kingdom. Nevertheless, in the context of the paragraph and article the significance is quite clear.

Personally, I would mention it in the main text. It need take no more than a sentence or two, which could be integrated into the existing paragraph about the English/Welsh distinction. If you have no objection, I can make such an edit and we can see how it looks.

It occurs to me as I type this that it might just be worth checking Wormald's books on Anglo-Saxon law (on which he was pretty much the authority) and on early medieval law generally, in case anything further turns up, but I rather doubt it will.

Zburh (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: PR automation

If the time frame is a couple months, yes I can probably do this. Some design issues will be troublesome. Gimmetrow 15:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Eardwulf

Found 2 sentences that were rather off, probably got half rewritten and now makes almost no sense. See the article's talk. I'll get back to the article ASAP to fix duplicate refs and add titles to notes. Regards. Circeus (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Cite encyclopedia

For the record, cite encyclopedia is mostly an adapted cite book. The major differences are the default use of author vs. editor and a "volume" element. For that reason, I prefer citing single volume encyclopedic works with cite book.

Regarding "within the church", the problem is on one end that purring that prepositional at the beginning feels very clunky, but that other formulations almost all result in something like "at ... at", which is no better. I can't see a way to just juggle the sentence, so a different structure seems to be necessary; maybe a formulation with a verb like "contains" or "include" instead would work better? Circeus (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I made a minor rewording that might help; let me know what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Egbert

I agree with you. It's clumsy and superfluous (no surprise that monarchs descend from each other) and intrudes into the flow of the prose and the information. Also, I doubt William III descended from Egbert. qp10qp 21:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- I appreciate the backup. I've deleted it. Mike Christie (talk) 04:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Online manuscripts

Thanks for pointing that site out to me. My take on it is that those manuscripts are significant historical manuscripts, but not significant for art or literary history. In case you are unaware, a cartulary is manuscript that records the charters of an institution or very rarely an individual. The one that have been preserved are almost always from churches and monastaries. Since they record the details of land transactions, they are a treasure trove to economic historians. I believe that almost every medieval manuscript is sufficuently notable enough to warrent a wikipedia article, and these certainly could have articles. Our bias towards manuscripts thus far has been towards illuminated manuscripts and manuscripts with significant literary texts, and away from other types of important manuscripts, such as these. These manuscripts certainly should be on the Cotton Library list, I just haven't made it to them yet. (I have far too many things I would like to do on Wikipedia, and near enough time.) All of that said, I'm not too certain how usefull these particular images are. They are of a pretty low quality, and the BL is quitly putting more and more high quality images on their website. I expect that sooner or later better images of these manuscripts will be available, if they aren't already. The best uses I can think of for these iamges are as to illustrate eventual articles on these manuscripts, as specimens of script types (I am not very well versed in paleogrpahy, Adam Bishop and Wetman have been fairly active on script articles in the past, they might be able to say if these images contain usefull examples), and to illustrate articles on people whose names show up in the manuscript. (If you poured over these, you might find the "signature" of an important saint or nobleman in one of the witness lists. However, it would be pretty low yield and I'm not sure it would be worth the time.) Dsmdgold 05:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to be of help. If you want some really good images you might spend some time exploring what the British Library has already put up. They have three options for images. The best is the Catalogue of illuminated manuscript. It has pretty limited coverage, the Cotton manuscripts aren't in it for example, but has some pretty stunning, high quality images. The best way I've found for browsing is to go to the advance search page, pick one of the collections and search, you get everything in that collection they have put up. The next best thing they have going is the Collect Britain illuminated manuscript collection. Sadly, the search function sucks, but if you hit the "browse whole collection" button it feeds the images to you in chronological order, more or less. The final thing, which is of limited utility, is the Images online section. This is their service for selling images and they watermark the images, but sometimes something useful can be cropped from them. The manuscript catalogue does not have images but sometimes has some great information. I keep a list of other institutions that have put images of their manuscripts online here. It is by no means complete, and if you find an institution with collections online please add it or bring the collection to my attention. Dsmdgold (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Maps

Mike, I know you use Demis.nl somehow in creating your spiffy maps. Does that let you add the overlay text, or does it just provide the nice green map itself? If it's only the map, is there a blank one somewhere on Wikipedia or Commons? Thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In the end, I created a this using the map SFC9394 made for me. Could be better, but good enough I think. I wonder if you'd have time to look over Constantine II of Scotland? It's rather long, nearly 4000 words excluding lead, captions, and notes. I'm not sure whether the background could be cut or not; I'm really tempted to start with the Alpínids and ignore everything before that, but that wouldn't make much difference to the size. Or I could prune the comments on neighbours. Any thoughts? Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Manuscripts

Cool, the guy who runs that site is a fellow student in my program! I'll have to look through it but I think it is just a collection of texts relating to a specific area of England, for a project at the university. What kind of manuscripts are you looking for in particular? Adam Bishop (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume they are public domain too, but it's also likely in this case that he took the manuscript images himself. You might want to contact him to see what the copyright status might be. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for notifying me, Mike. I think the website you linked concerning the oldest cartulary, at Worcester, should be linked in a footnote at Cartulary; I'll see to that. Do cue me in if you come across any further apparently un-noticed websites giving access to medieval manuscripts: I think linking from appropriate Wikipedia pages is usually the most important step. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetman (talk • contribs) 21:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Content review

Hi Mike, I've been watching the proceedings at Wikipedia talk:Content review/workshop for awhile. For what it's worth I have access to pretty extensive news archives and am more than willing to check archived news stories upon request at FAC. I already do this informally, but would certainly be welcome to help out on a semi-formal basis as well, if the conversation moves that direction. Cheers! --JayHenry (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; good to know there are possible volunteers in the wings if that's the idea that comes up. If you're watching it, you'll no doubt see how the conversation goes, but I'll drop you a note if we end up suggesting something like that. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Wulfhere family tree

I was about to suggest adding a family tree to the article, until I spotted that you had just done it. A couple of suggestions on how to improve it.

1. Include the Northumbrian kings (via marriage to Peada)
2. Bold the kings of Mercia, and or Northumbria, give their dates of rule

I think that this would help the user when trying to understand the relationship between Mercia and Northumbria at this time.

I've done some additional tweaks the article (especially the first paragraph of the lead, which I found very confusing on my initial read-through). Bluap (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I need to create some family trees. What did you create that one with? Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The public are dissatisfied with my effort - any chance you could email me the Powerpoint stuff you used? My email address is <my wikipedia user name> at gmail.com ? Thanks in advance! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's on its way. Mike Christie (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good Bluap (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Calling in the favor - :)

You did such a nice job with the Wulfhere family tree, I was wondering if you could create a family tree for Fanny Imlay. Qp10qp and I are going to do Mary Shelley in a few months and the same tree will work for that article (as well as numerous other articles, as you will soon see). All of the info you would need is here. I'm afraid I just don't know how to do fancy graphics like that. If this is too much to ask, I understand. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 07:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be a pleasure to help. I think you probably don't want the entire tree for Fanny Imlay, though, right? She's just off in a corner and is not directly connected to most of that tree. How about if I do a reduced version for her, and a bigger version for use with articles on people closer to the centre of the tree? I'd suggest a tree with Fanny, her parents, Mary Shelley, and William Godwin. Then for Mary Shelley, it might be a good idea to split the tree into two: one for her ancestors and one for her descendants. Take a look at Eadbald of Kent for an example. Partly this is because I think you want the tree as legible as possible while you're reading, so you don't want to cram too much in. There was a recent comment to this effect on the FAC for Constantine II of Scotland, and I think it was a good point. However, it's your article, and I can put these trees together however you would like.

I might get a chance to work on it today, but if not, it might be a couple of days as I have a busy week coming up. I will definitely be able to do it over Christmas, though, if it doesn't happen soon. Let me know if you have any other preferences in the way of fonts, or bolding the subject of the article, or annotations on the tree. Mike Christie (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• I do actually want all of the people on the tree, as Fanny had complicated relationships. If you glance at the article (which is a bit of a mess right now), you will see why. Sorry to make it more complicated. :( Thanks so much and don't worry about finishing it before the holidays. The article itself will take me several months to complete. Awadewit | talk 17:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually that makes it easier as I don't have to do a separate one for Fanny. I'll assume you want a single big graphic for the whole tree unless you tell me otherwise; it'll be easy enough to break out separate sub-trees if needed. Mike Christie (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• One graphic sounds fine to me. Again, thanks so much! Awadewit | talk 17:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's try adding the married dates as Lquilter suggested on my talk page and the rest of the death notes. Here is the information (and more). Apparently some of the information on that website was not quite correct (sigh):

• Mary Jane Vial Clairmont (?1766-1841)
• Mary Jane Clairmont (called Claire Clairmont)
• Father of Charles Clairmont is Karl Gaulis (?1766-1796)
• William Godwin (1756-1836)
• William Godwin, Jr. (1803-1832)
• Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin (later Shelley) (1797-1851)
• Percy Florence Shelley (1819-1888)
• Allegra died of typhus
• Godwin died of catarrhal fever
• Byron died of a fever
• Godwin and Wollstonecraft were married on 29 March 1797
• Godwin and Clairmont were married on 21 December 1801
• Shelley married Harriet twice: August 1811 (secretly) and 23 March 1814 (officially)
• Shelley married Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin on 30 December 1816

I'm not sure we know the causes of death of the others, but I'll keep looking. The source for the information and the dates is St Clair, William. The Godwins and the Shelleys: The biography of a family. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1989. ISBN 0-393-02783-X. Awadewit | talk 08:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've put all of this in except for the marriage dates on the top line. Take a look and let me know if there are any errors. For those last two marriages, I think I'd have to do some serious reorganization of that top layer. The format I used for Shelley's marriages requires a certain length of line, and I just don't have it up there. Let me know how you want to handle it. I think the best option is probably just to stretch everything widthwise, which will make it unwieldy but clean. I'd move Mary W and everything connected to her on the right and below, all to the right. That would give me room to stretch the two lines connected to William Godwin senior, and then I could do it. Anyway, let me know. Mike Christie (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I've reconsidered the "(later Shelley)" appellation for "Mary Shelley". No one else has that, so it seems unnecessary for her. Why don't you stretch the tree and we'll see what happens. Awadewit | talk 07:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Done; take another look. (I'm having caching problems for some reason, but if the tree doesn't appear to be updated, click on the image itself and you should see the new version -- it's definitely uploaded.) Mike Christie (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Awadewit | talk 22:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The art of hedging

I'll have a look tomorrow. Perhaps. Or the next day. Probably. qp10qp (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not busy. Just finished a month on the Elizabeth I FAR, so am going to do a few reviews and copyedits before plunging back into the Valois swamp. qp10qp (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Happy Christmas and a merry new year to you and yours. You've achieved an extraordinary amount here this year. I'm not going to say keep it up, because that would be impossible. You set a wonderful example of civility, too. All kudos to your elbow. qp10qp (talk) 11:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Community

Mike, the community has to address the issue because it's widespread. I can't continue to be judge and jury—that will lead to problems—but in the past, I was the one highlighting and addressing the faulty reviews. There's no "me" doing that now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

You note of supported yesterday was appreciated. Thanks, and have a good christmas. Ceoil (talk) 23:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Another favor - eek

If you have a moment, could you review Analytical Review? It is up for peer review, but of course no one is beating down the doors to review it. It has gotten one peer review already, but I always like at least two. The Analytical Review was a short-lived liberal journal published during the 1790s. Despite its short-livedness, it was influential. However, there is not that much written on it and I've had to do some digging to find information on it. I thought that your experience in writing about obscure SF magazines might at least give you some familiarity with the troubles I have had with this article. WillowW started it out and I've been fleshing it out. If you feel that it is too obscure, I would totally understand. Awadewit | talk 02:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I will definitely take a look and see what I can find to say. Do let me know if that family tree needs more tweaking; and you had mentioned bolding different names so that it could be used in different articles -- when the tree is just right, let me know which names you want that done for and I'll run off the images for you. Mike Christie (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the Analytical Review review - it was excellent. I'm beginning to think that the family tree doesn't need multiple copies. We'll see what other people say when they look at the articles. Awadewit | talk 15:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Gaelic names

The names need to be in a form that makes the articles usable by as many readers as possible. When monarchs are referenced not by the understandable X IV but by G m C, it makes it very difficult to understand. As it is, some of these articles seem to have garnered a 'niche' reputation - accessible only to Scots. That, I'm afraid, is unacceptable. English language wikipedia uses English language, and English language forms, wherever the forms would otherwise be too oblique to those not already capably familiar with them (i.e. the forms most commonly used in the English language are used). Thus, we speak of John the Fearless rather than Jean sans Peur, Charles the Bewitched rather than Carlos el Hechizado, Alexios Komnenos rather than...whatever that is in the Greek alphabet. The Scottish articles should be no different. So, whilst it gives me no joy to either take an attitude which I suspect must appear hurtful (it isn't intended to be) or to take the time to alter the name forms, it needs to be done. Michael Sanders 14:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the abysmal state of some of these articles (grammatical errors, mainly), and the infrequency with which they are edited, I think some renewed attention towards them would be rather beneficial. Michael Sanders 00:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

RE:[edit] Names of early British historical figures

U...u...u...u....rgh. People just love ways to make each other's lives a little less worth living! Here we go again. :( Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

St Kilda

Dear Mike Christie - many thanks for your assistance with this FAC, which has finally passed muster. Please feel free to let me know if you need any assistance in return. Best wishes. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 14:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: A note of appreciation

Thank you for your warm hearted and generous comments. I'll try my best to keep it up. Please know that the comments are reciprocated. I'm sorry that such matters as these take up so much of our time, it's really unfortunate, but seems to be inevitable in this project. Best regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hello Mike, I hope you had a pleasant New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! Thanks for all your hard work on the FA program running. Here's to another big year of quality prose! ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Move of Scottish kings

There is a proposed move of Scottish kings at Talk:Kenneth I of Scotland that I thought I'd bring to your attention. I think you have had things to say on this subject in the past. Probably won't be successful, but that's wiki for you. Best regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to get in the car and head out of town till Saturday; will look when I get back. Thanks for the heads up. Mike Christie (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC for Jim Bowie

Hi Mike. If you have the time and energy, could you please take a look at the FAC for Jim Bowie? I've had trouble getting people to review the article, and any suggestions you have for improvement would be very welcome. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

re:Monarchs of England

Hi. I was just adding the template to each page, as that ruler's name is on the template. It seemed odd to have a link to an article on that template, but not to have that template on the article. Maybe the template is the issue though! Lugnuts (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Lugnuts (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Lugnuts (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim Bowie - picture

Hi Mike. Thanks so much for your comments at the Jim Bowie FAC. What do you think of this map? It shows Mexican Texas in 1833, including LA and marks the Mississippi River, Opelousas, the major land grants and some of the towns in Texas. My only hesitation in including it is that it is a scan of a very old map and I think it's a bit hard to read. I don't want to include it if it will confuse people more. Thanks for any advice. Karanacs (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Edmund the Martyr

...is currently up for GAR. This seems to be up your street, if I recall your interests correctly, yet you have not edited it as far as I can tell. Do you have an opinion on the GAR? Geometry guy 18:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist, though I hadn't noticed a GAR on it. It's had edit wars over the issue of whether Edmund is or isn't a patron saint of England; I tend to stay away from articles with edit wars, and it's actually a little later than the period which is my main interest. Still, I'd be glad to take a look and see if I can find something useful to say. Thanks for the heads up.

By the way, I had planned to post a note at the workshop, but hadn't gotten to it; I think I might combine that with a note at WT:FAC, since someone there has just suggested people head over to the workshop with solutions (as opposed to problems). I agree that what we're short of is solutions. I'll put a note together this evening -- I should have time, though it's my daughter's first day back at school and no doubt I'll get called in to look at something homework related. Mike Christie (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. As you know from my RfA, I tend to avoid content disputes myself, and do not like it when GAR is used as a mechanism to further an agenda. Even if it is a bit later than your main interests, I'd appreciate your view on whether this is primarily a dispute, or whether there are GA issues that need to be addressed.

I like your essay, and am glad it has generated some interest at WT:FAC. Thanks also for the reminder that there is real life too! I think that to be a good editor at WP requires putting it in perspective. Geometry guy 20:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I made some comments. I think I would say delist, if I were to vote, but I'm not really confident about dropping in on an established process without getting familiar with it, so I thought it would be best to just provide information.

As I thought, I had to do some algebra assistance tonight -- things have changed since I was taught linear equations, so I'm having to learn new terminology. Apparently "standard form" for a linear equation is "ax + by = c", with integer coefficients and c constrained to be positive. What I think of as standard form is "y = mx + c", but Jesse's class calls that "slope-intercept form" (and uses "b" for the constant, not "c". Hark, the sound of an old dog learning new tricks. Or at least new names for old tricks.

I saw Maclean commented at the workshop. Let's hope that fires up some discussion; it's a variation on a topic we've covered before, but I think harnessing any energy available in an ongoing discussion is more likely to succeed than trying to inject energy. Mike Christie (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the extensive comments Mike - that is useful info. I wouldn't worry about just dropping in: lots of people do (including, of course, editors of the articles being reassessed). There is some subjectivity in interpreting the criteria, so we try to determine actions by weight of argument rather than numbers of votes, and your arguments will carry a lot of weight!

Your daughter might want to ask the schoolteacher what is the standard form for "y=mx+b" when m is the square root of two and b=π :-) Geometry guy 19:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. I just noticed you wrote "age at birth" in your comments - I guess you meant "age at death", right?

Ouch. Actually I meant "date of birth"; I guess I was conflating "age" with "date of birth", since that was the argument being made in the article. I'll keep an eye and will switch to saying "delist" if it seems a close call. I was a bit reluctant to be negative, because as far as I can tell EdChampion is not being very cooperative with the other editors, and it would really be best for the article if he'd back off and let them do what they can. So I didn't want to seem to be endorsing Ed at all. However, there really are problems with the content and sourcing. Thanks for pointing me at it, by the way; I rather enjoyed taking a look at it. I hope it wasn't self-aggrandizing to point at a couple of articles I've worked on as examples, but it did seem a very direct way of showing what I was talking about.

I don't think I'm cruel enough to take your suggestion! I can't really be sure what standard form means, anyway; they're not using a textbook so I'm relying on her in-class notes to figure this stuff out, and she's twelve, so they're about as good as you'd expect. All the equations I've seen in her notes in "standard form" are the way I described, but there's no definition. I suspect it's intended to be by analogy with the form of a general second degree equation in two variables, which as I recall is usually written as a string of xy, x^2 etc. terms with the constant on the right.

I hope you're going to comment at WT:FAC: I rather like the idea I put up (and I suspect it could be assisted with categories and bots and so forth) and would like to see it discussed. Mike Christie (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Commented, both at GAR and FAC. For the first, exemplars are a very good way to help people write better articles, so thanks for providing them. For the second, I like your idea, and hope it has legs. Geometry guy 20:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

RE;Map

Thanks for that link. I should prolly make a page like that for myself for the articles I edit. Anyways, I noticed you were requesting feedback on the Aldfrith article. Just a few points about Aldfrith. I notice that Moisl's "The Bernician Royal Dynasty and the Irish" hasn't been used so far; this offers the most detailed and sophisticated treatment of Aldfrith's accession and early years, though it is not a treatment that has convinced everyone. Since you don't have it in the article, I'll quote Moisl on Aldfrith's ascent:

"Aldfrith was in Iona in the year preceding the battle [of Dunnichen]; immediately afterwards, he was king of Northumbria. It is quite obvious that he must have been installed by the Pictish-Dál Riatan alliance".

You can note Bede, never one to downplay the fortunes of the English nation, writing about Dunnichen, wrote "From this time the hopes and strength of the English kingdom began to ebb and fall away" (HE iv. 26) Just for your info, there's a very revealing passage in the VSC[olumbae], ii. 46, Adomnan says that plague has visited all Europe's peoples except the Picts and Irish, and that the English suffered; Adomnan had encountered it when he visited Northumbrian, but when he visited Aldfrith "after Ecgfrith's battle", the plague had no effect. Maybe I have a skewed perspective, but I think this topic could be elaborated on at the beginning of the Reign section before advancing it to FA.

I also don't think it's a good idea to use Cramp's ODNB as the default opinion from which others depart. Cramp isn't a proper historian, which you can maybe tell by her handling of the hagiographic material ... I refer here to her use of the Cuthbert and Ælfflæd incident. Kirby has more authority. The evidence of Aldfrith's connection to Iona is obvious, I don't reckon it's all that controversial. The article atm doesn't discuss it much ... although Iona things do come up quite a bit. BTW, there's a school of thought that reckons it's pretty clear that Aldfrith was a monk of Iona who was taken and installed by Bridei after the latter destroyed his English rival, and that Northumbria became a vassal state of Fortriu. You shouldn't of course mention that in the article, but I'm just letting you know it's out there a lurks behind the scenes of much published literature. It might ... I dunno ... be made more explicit in Fraser's upcoming work, but we'll see. Good luck getting this article to featured ... it's already quite a bit there. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Ok, thanks. Angus may be inclined to wait for Fraser's book to come out to see if it says anything useful, although he may not have any expectation of coverage of any English kingdoms. Are you pressing forth with it soon? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think in general FA's are more likely to go well if one edits, and others review. I can add references if you like, give it more breadth. I can add some small stuff in the next few days, which you should feel free to dispense with or retain according to your judgment without any reference to me. Definitely no co-nomination. I'd already nominated one of Angus' articles for FA before User:Ghirlandajo informed me about WP:WBFAN, so if anything I should be getting Angus to make a nomination for an article I've actually done, rather than another the other way around. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Response in regards to map

The map I created, used cartographer and historian William R. Shepherd's 802 map as a reference. This is the one which the modern day variations are derived from and like the one I created it showed the rough areas in different colours, rather than just random names on one of the same colour, I think it makes it easier for users to see which modern day cities/villages would be generally in which kingdom. Regards. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC stuff

Thanks. I left a note. I don't know if the project will be the best place for it. I'm just the kind of guy who just doesn't like to sit around and talk. I like to do things. Wrad (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback?

Mike, there's a new (well, new to non-admins) rollback feature that makes it easier to revert vandalism. Would you like me to enable it for you? Just let me know, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I only started sprucing up Beorhtwulf because it was so miserable, but I'm not meaning to aim for a finished article, just something good-enough. Starting from Cearl, there should be enough in nearly all of them to get to the sort of 10K minimum needed for a GA, and most should be big enough to creep through FAC. Ceolwald would always be pretty short, likewise Beorned, but Ecgfrith should be a reasonable size. I'm not sure it's a good idea to merge just two articles in a series. As I recall, there were a lot of 1-2 paragraph pieces in the Britannica. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

		Thanks for your support
		Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Þingalið

Hi Mike,

Having seen your name associated with a load of Anglo-Saxon articles at FAC, I wondered if you'd ever come across this lot: Þingalið. Please see this and Talk:Þingalið for background. Mainly trying to determine what to do with the article, whether it's genuine (I think it is), if there are any OR concerns, and what a better name could be.

Advice or opinions would be appreciated. Cheers. Carre (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Island question

Just remembered I hadn't seen a reply from you re my Talk page comments about your island question. If you have that's fine - no problems. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 10:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should have replied at least to say thank you for the pointers. It wasn't the books you mentioned as possibilities. I read the books in the mid-seventies, so they would most likely have been published in the ten or twenty years before then. I decided not to post to the WikiProject to ask; it's not really a Wikipedia-related question so I can't justify taking their time. I asked you because I was posting to your page anyway (and you had just offered a return favour if I needed one!). No worries; I'll find the books sooner or later. Thanks again. Mike Christie (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

How about Lillian Beckwith? Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 20:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes! That's it! Thanks so much; I really appreciate it. Now I have to order one second-hand; I hope I'm not disappointed, re-reading them after thirty years. Thank you again; if you need a favour, I most definitely owe you one! Mike Christie (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC

Mike, I'll post to you directly tomorrow regarding the current Workshop conversation. I'm not enjoying bobbing and weaving with Wrad. Marskell (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I did, in a moment of pique, begin this: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#The_fucking_MoS:_a_question. Perhaps you have examples. Marskell (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If you agree that "most of the nominators fix the MOS issues pretty quickly," then why do we need a separate tier to deal with MoS issues? Not getting it: "fixed quickly" suggests things are working well. I do, honestly, want to see examples of FACs failing solely for MoS issues before agreeing to any distinct template regarding the MoS. The MoS is not the problem and deprecating is, most certainly, not the solution. The problem is inexperienced editors. Marskell (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if my posts seemed aggressive last night. I was frustrated having the MoS conversation for the umpteenth time. Anyway, I promised a fuller response:

• Again, I have never seen an FAC that has failed solely because of MoS issues. Having a separate category for such is thus a solution in search of a problem.
• I get frustrated with the dismissive comments surrounding the MoS. Take this from G-Guy: "There is an obvious solution to this: remove the formal "guideline" status from MoS, and modify the FA criterion 2 to say that "It broadly follows the style guidelines..." Then those who care about things such as non-breaking spaces can get on with it without wasting everyone else's time." Remove it's status? Say what? What large publishing organization doesn't have an in-house style guide? What publication that calls itself professional does not strive for consistent presentation and formatting? I'm very far from the most zealous MoS enforcer, but style does matter. If we're calling the FAs our best articles, then it's perfectly legitimate to worry about these issues.
• Whether intended or not, the denigration of the MoS is a slap in the face to Tony and Sandy who do so much of the reviewing. Relatedly, the idea that everyone hates formatting concerns is disproven by the thousands of requests for ce and formatting help that these two have received. Many new editors like having rules. I do wish, admittedly, that Tony would deploy sarcasm less often in his reviewing.
• "Does FAC concern itself too much with style issues?" can be viewed two ways. Too great a concern because style itself isn't particularly important? No, as above. Too great a concern when considered relative to emphasis on content? Possibly, but that isn't the fault of the MoS. It's a lack of content experts that's the problem there. Chucking the MoS because we don't have content comments is backwards. If you lose your left leg, you don't cut off your right to even things out. Marskell (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Mike, I've been working on an FA essay of my own that should speak to some of your points; I'll let you know when I'm finished.

We are both cut from the same editing cloth at the moment, focussing on FA's with a large percentage of our edits. Wikipedia needs a thousand flowers: vandal fighters, new page patrollers, stub tidiers, MoS fixers, and FA writers. Thus I think you and I are examplars of a certain type—but not the only type that Wikipedia needs. On this we agree. The problem with things like WP:WBFAN and even the gold star itself is that they are encouraging that one type ahead of others. (I'm as guilty as anyone; I should review more relative to my nominations.) What would be the equivalent of WBFAN for reviewers and MoS fixers? Can we create something?

The most logical pool of near-FAs is the GAs; hence my long-standing suggestion that GA should be merged into the FA process somehow. But to do it properly, much would have to happen that wouldn't be amendable to people, I fear. I would start by renaming it and dropping the green plus sign—these things, even though cosmetic, would probably rankle more than anything.

You might have missed it, but I did offer one thing last night that's worth considering: what if every first-time FA nominator must have a mentor, who has FAs of their own, first look at their article? Marskell (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Note

Thank you, Mike, for the kind words of support on my talk page during this painful incident. They meant a lot to me, and were very comforting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Maps

I'll leave him a message on his talk page, since he's edit-warring with you & Deacon of Pndapetzim, although I don't know how persuasive I'll be. I'll admit that my preference is for a map with boundaries, but edit-warring is not the successful or productive way to convince anyone to do it this way. -- llywrch (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Users are allowed to remove content from their talk pages, although many Wikipedians frown on this practice. In any case content that is deleted is presumed read, so I'm not too worried about that edit -- well, not as much as I am worried that he is edit-warring at another location. -- llywrch (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Aldfrith rewrite

Hello Mike. Your rewrite seems excellent to me! As for maps ... I am quite ok with what is there now, but if you wanted to do a two-map solution I'd suggest (a) a detailed map of Northumbria only and (b) a map of Britain and Ireland to show Iona, Brega, Dunnichen and the Trent for background. How does that sound? I don't have the Moisl paper the Deacon mentioned, so I've never been able to include his stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll think some more about the maps and may give that a try. I'll go ahead and paste this sandbox version back into the article and work on it there; thanks for the feedback. I'll drop you another note when I think the article's close to ready for FAC. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Offa

Hello Mike. Happy New Year! I'll have a look at Offa and let you know, but I won't be back home, where my A-S books are, until Tuesday. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be delighted if you could give Aldfrith a touch of your usual magic! I now have two more Aldfrith-era books - Blair, Northumbria in the Age of Bede; Hawkes & Mills (eds), Northumbria's Golden Age - so perhaps I can add something more to the article from those. I'll have a look later this week and let you know. I finally got a copy of Mayr-Harting's book on the conversion, so I should be able to get back to earlier kings: Oswald is very nearly FA class now, Everyking (James) did a great job there (he also did Penda); Oswiu needs a lot more work. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The P.H. Blair quote is from An Introduction, so I added the details. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The cataloguing stuff in the front of the book says "Blair, Peter Hunter". What a cheat! Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost

Take a look: User:Marskell/Sandbox. A simple look at the stats turns up some interesting things. This isn't the essay I had mentioned but something else I had been planning for Wikipedia:Signpost. Marskell (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right about Hink. I looked manually from WBFAN and was counting a featured topic listing. (Devilish of you to have already noticed.)

The FA page itself lists FAs as one in 1,200. WP:FAS shows the percentages over time. FAs dropped to below 0.08% of all articles and have been (slowly) creeping back up. Or are you asking for a different stat?

FAR removals should begin to decline this year. I've been waiting for it to happen. See Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems for related stats. Extrapolating from the last three years, we should see about 950 successful noms this year. I'm going to make an informed guess that removals will drop to 150, leaving 800 or 67 per month. (If I'm within 50 you can give me a barnstar in a year.) If you view Wikipedia as a multi-decade process, that isn't terrible year-over-year improvement. But, you know, life is short.

And there's that other nagging fact: FAs are becoming increasingly obscure and have always been pop cult heavy. A projection on a 100k FAs corresponding to articles actually in Britannica would run above a millenium. Look at Wikipedia:Vital articles. There is just one category, the Solar System, that looks like what we want all core topics to look like.

But your right: assembly lines. Solar System is working on an assembly line: Sun and seven of eight planets, three of three dwarf planets, two of four major regions, five of the big seven moons. And so on. Serendipodous and Ruslik can do it in their sleep at this point. The good part is that it only requires three or four mutually reinforcing users to create a positive feedback loop. Clique creation. Marskell (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we perhaps sitting on the next workshop topic? The last didn't take-off, perhaps because of the holiday. Marskell (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How did you generate that list? Cas told me he had thirteen, which I manually checked. I think we should ask User:Rick Block if his bot can do it; he might not have noticed my comment on WBFAN talk.

You know, if the Foundation paid a good editor they could do two a week. It's less weird than it sounds. A Defence Department might do the same... Marskell (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Offa

No, all credit to you for putting up with me! And your getting a qp10qp and an Awadewit review on the same day is almost beyond the call of duty. Wikipedia is my hobby and a glorified way of reading, so articles, reviews, it's all the same to me—but I tend to get carried away. Offa is worth it, though, if anyone is. I mean, to a medieval historian, lets face it, he's one of the Charlie-Big-Potatoes. qp10qp (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you just an early A-S man or do you intend to go onto Alfred, Edward and Athelstan? I must say, those three interest me a bundle: just the whole thing of turning the tide against those pesky Vikings. qp10qp (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way (in case you thought I'd stopped nagging you at last), the Yorke view is well integrated, but there's a bleeding chunk of her text stranded in the article, as if you were suddenly called away for your tea.

Oh, and are you thinking of doing Bede? qp10qp (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I put in a vote for Bede? I want to learn more about him and I'm sensing a bias towards political figures. How about throwing in a literary figure or two? :) Awadewit | talk 03:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think I'd like to try to finish up the Mercians first. When I've done that I'll take a look and see what sources I'd need. The current article is actually not too bad; it's a GA. Mike Christie (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Not too bad" is no Mike Christie-FA, though. :) If you want source help, I can ask my medievalist friends. I can post a bibliography, which you can use whenever you get around to the article. Awadewit | talk 03:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! No need to ask about a bibliography yet -- there are a few people around here that can point me in the right direction, and I also think I have enough related books that I can figure out a lot of the right books. If you're interested in him, the Ecclesiastical History is available free online, and is quite an interesting read if you've got just enough background in A-S England to have a framework. I read it fairly early on, and enjoyed it but didn't retain a lot; but I now know bits of it very well because they are cited so extensively. Anyway, thanks for the encouragement. And congrats on getting Analytical Review to FA -- I just noticed that. Mike Christie (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mike. I was aimlessly Googling for Offa and I came across something that may be of interest. Chris Wickham's Framing the Early Middle Ages (p. 180) compares Clovis and Offa: "... it would stretch the imagination if we were to suppose that Clovis actually managed to destroy all of them [i.e. the other Frankish kings &c], and their families, creating a political terra rasa in the north, which was then replaced by a totally different system. The most ruthless Anglo-Saxon kings - Offa, Alfred - reduced their rival kings to the aristocratic level; they did not wipe them out. So did the Huns." There's also a section on pp. 303-304 where he opines that only Mercia under Offa and Coenwulf, of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, could be called a state. I don't know whether you can get Wickham's book out of the library, but much of chapter 6 seems to be devoted to Mercia under Offa and Coenwulf. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the lead; I'll put this on my wishlist for my birthday. I was planning Coenwulf soon so it would fit well; and I could then retrofit the Offa article with any good bits. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is sort of weird...

...cause I feel like a petulant kid, posting it. But: "We have three volunteers: Awadewit, Mike Christie and Wrad." Given that I, you know, proposed the countries idea, wasn't it obvious that I was volunteering? Marskell (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Somerset FAC

Unfortunately there has been a problem with FAC (possibly due to transcluded pages/templates & overall page size). As a result several nominations, including Somerset, have had to be restarted and I have been informed that all previous commentary (both supporting and opposing), including yours is void. As a result would you be kind enough to review the page and place any comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset. Thanks— Rod ^talk 19:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Soory previous message doesn't apply to your recent comments.— Rod ^talk 19:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Content review workshop

Mike, I just wanted to apologise for not being more involved over at the workshop. I'd love to be participating more, but you know what these things are like - you have to be following all the threads and developments. I've got a lot of chemistry stuff going on (we're doing a formal validation of 6000 chemical infoboxes!) and also WP1.0 stuff (we have the test "importance" data from our new bot) so my wikiplate is just too full. Shame, because there seems to be lots of good stuff over at the workshop too! I'll try and poke my nose in again eventually, but if there's anything short & sweet you want help with leave me a message. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

captions

Did I get it wrong? Sorry if so. They're fine now. Tony (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much ...

... for the review of Reese Witherspoon; should help get that one moving. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wormshill

Having seen your input on the recent St. Kilda FAC, I thought I might draw your attention to Wormshill which is also going through the same process. The article has already had one copy edit but still contains prose issues that some editors/reviewers find objectionable. If you have some spare time, please could I ask you to take a quick look and let us have your comments? Many thanks in advance Dick G (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. Many thanks Dick G (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks once again. Very much appreciate your time, efforts and ultimately support. Cheers Dick G (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A belated note of thanks for your input on Wormshill which achieved FA while I was on a wikibreak. Cheers Dick G (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Gong

		The Featured Article Medal
		This medal is awarded to Mike Christie for his superlative work on Anglo-Saxon kings. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated. I don't keep an awards page, but I really am flattered to get the award and I will remember it. Thank you. Mike Christie (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I second this! You have done excellent work, Mike Christie. You were Wikipedia's most FA-productive user in 2007. Hope to see more great things this year! :) Nishkid64 (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That is an incredible number of FAs! You've inspired me to really try something. Not having any featured articles yet, it will be difficult, but your essay has really inspired me. By the way, comments at your essay talk page as well. Carcharoth (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Inspiration is a good outcome; not one I expected but I'm glad to hear it. Have fun writing; I'll look out for your work at FAC. Mike Christie (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Every time I think I'm catching up to you at WP:WBFAN, I notice that you've moved up again. :) It's good, friendly competition and you produce such excellent work! Awadewit | talk 17:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the way I feel about it too! I feel your hot breath on the back of my neck. It keeps me running -- though I don't think either of us are ever going to catch Hurricanehink. I should also say your articles seem a lot harder to write than mine -- yours require so much more integration of multiple sources. And getting literary commentary in an article in a comprehensive but NPOV way strikes me as one of the most difficult balancing acts an article writer can do. Anyway, thanks; and keep writing. Mike Christie (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team and first mission (MMM)

Dear Mike,

Many thanks for volunteering to join the FA-Team (and for being so instrumental in creating it). We now have a first mission, to help the Murder, Madness and Mayhem WikiProject improve twelve articles towards featured article status. These articles are really interesting, and the person in charge of WP:MMM is enthusiastic about our support, so this mission should be a real pleasure. Please watchlist the mission page and the WikiProject page as well as some (or all) of the twelve articles. The students contributing to these articles are all new to Wikipedia, so please be ultra-friendly towards them.

The coordinator for this mission is Wrad (talk), who may suggest further ways in which you can help. I will provide back-up. In particular, it might be useful for you to indicate which of the twelve articles interest you most (or which ones you are watchlisting) on the mission page.

Thanks again for joining in. I think this will be a lot of fun for all of us, and hopefully we can make it fun for the students too and create a few more featured articles between now and April. Geometry guy 21:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. If you have time to add information about your expertise to the FA-Team page that would be great!

Looksee and polite begging

When you find time, can you read over Augustine of Canterbury. I've just finished a large round of edits to it, and as I am really NOT an Anglo-Saxon scholar, I'd appreciate another set of eyes checking it over. I followed the bread crumbs from Angus' page to yours. Feel free to rip it to shreds, I admit to being new to the whole early Anglo-Saxon stuff and very well may have committed a million major blunders in my editing. Thanks! Ealdgyth | Talk 02:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I know it has no lede. I usually write those last after I have settled the main text. Thanks! Ealdgyth | Talk 02:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so very very much. I'm totally out of my normal element with this early Anglo-Saxon stuff. I was concerned I was making some huge historical errors or something with the background and/or getting the kings all wrong or something. GIve me a nice Anglo-Norman with their "fitzThis" and "fitzThat" any day! The forty monks may have come from the Britannica and I matched it to a citation, I'll go ahead and change that, as I agree. When I first started this silly project of the medieval English bishops, I was just going to get bare bones on the Anglo-Saxons and stick to fleshing out the area I know best, but the project's sorta grown with time. So Augustine's article was originally one of those 1911 Britannica articles, which I threw citations at to at least give it some sense of reliability. And then I kept coming back with more and more details, and now I figure it's mostly there, might as well make it GA/FA. So I'll have to go back and double check a lot of sources just to make sure everything is utterly precise.

The 592 definite date is from Brooks, he's pretty definite in the text that that was when Ceawlin was eclipsed. This is what I was hoping you'd find and correct, since I have really only the most cursory information on the political background to the religious figures. As far as the Bretcher theory, yeah, it's from Brooks. Brooks is pretty dismissive, but he felt strongly enough about refuting it to devote three or four pages to knocking it out. I figure anytime a scholar spends that pageage on refuting something, it must be semi-big somewhere, and should probably get at least a mention.

Obviously I have several of Brooks' works. And some other ecclesiastical oriented stuff. Any time you want/need information on that sort of thing for your kings, let me know and i'll try to get you what you need. I keep a list of my references at User:Ealdgyth/History References, so anything on there is in my library and I'd be honored to get you information. It's obviously more Post-Conquest oriented, but there are some before Conquest ecclesiastical stuff in there. I really appreciate you taking the time to look over this, and for the offer of a copyedit, which I plan to take you up on! Ealdgyth | Talk 02:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Austen family tree

I have another favor to ask. Could you make an Austen family tree? I can provide you a list of the people and their dates here in an organized fashion. Jane Austen's tree is not nearly so complicated as the Godwin-Shelley tree. :) If you are too busy, I would understand. Awadewit | talk 22:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure; just let me have the info. I am looking forward to the article; I've always been a fan of Austen's. I've never been able to bring myself to read Sanditon, though. I bought a copy some twenty-odd years ago, but the thought of getting halfway through an Austen novel and being unable to finish just seems too much like torture. Mike Christie (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

How about I scan the trees I have and email them to you? There is one major tree, with a few offshoots. Awadewit | talk 08:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've emailed you to let you know my email address. Mike Christie (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now emailed you the trees. Awadewit | talk 03:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• As indicated on the "Talk" page for the JA Timeline article, I'm happy to work with you on this to the extent you need help. Feel free to use e.mail if it is useful (it's a home account, so I may not get to it until evenings during the business week.) I've lived with the Austen bio now for nine months . . . Simmaren (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Simmaren. I will be getting to this over the next few days. My first question is going to be how much of the tree we want -- how many generations, and how many collateral relatives. From the material Awadewit sent me it's evident this thing could be enormous.

For an example of the sort of thing I've done, take a look at these:

• Image:Family tree of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley.gif
• Image:Offa genealogy.gif
• Image:Wulfhere genealogy.gif

Some other decisions are whether to include full birth and death dates for everyone, whether you have a preference for italics or font size differences between the names and the other info, and whether to try to preserve an arrangement in which vertical layout maps to generations, so that every one in the same generation is the same distance down the page. This last requirement can result in very wide trees. One thing to bear in mind is that readers like to be able to read the tree without clicking on it, so that would argue for the tree to be presented in small chunks on multiple images. On the other hand, a single integrated tree is the best way to present all the information coherently. Let me know if you have preferences on these points. Mike Christie (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• I will look at your examples, give it some some thought and get back to you as soon as I can. Thanks very much. Simmaren (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• It would help me give you input, I think, if I could see the material Awadewit sent you as the basis for your work. I will e.mail you my e.mail addresses (home and office). Would you mind forwarding a copy of the material to me, at your convenience? The family tree(s) for JA will have significantly more data to deal with than the examples you set out above (perhaps closest to Shelly?). That may well require more than one panel for the text to be legible. We'll see. Thanks. Simmaren (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've forwarded the material Awadewit sent me; let me know what you think I should try first. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comments on the two charts are posted on the respective Talk pages. Very nice work. Simmaren (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for all of your hard work on the trees - they look great. Awadewit | talk 16:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:British 7C kingdoms with Bernicia and Deira.gif

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:British 7C kingdoms with Bernicia and Deira.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Aldfrith

I'll add something on Northumbria's Golden Age as soon as I can skim all the way through the book of the same name. Thanks for all the hard work you've done on copyediting! Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've started. Manuscripts and material done, now intellectuals and missionaries. Northumbria's Golden Age has lots of stuff for the Bede expansion! I'll need to keep it to a minimum in Aldfrith though. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I love reading your articles. They are always interesting and I'm learning lots about the Anglo-Saxon period. In answer to your question, I'll answer to either karanacs or Karen. I've only worked with Dr. Kiernan a few times and don't know him well, but names are one of the few instances where I'm not picky (as long as you don't call me a shrew) ;) Karanacs (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? Always a difficult question. So far I haven't found a useful answer in print, but I'll keep looking. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent map! There's a lot to be said for re-using maps, and thus not creating a simplified version. For me it's fine as is. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

How about having "Nechtansmere" rather than the anachronistic Forfar? Apart from that, no problems that I can see. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: FA Comments

I saw your post on Angus' talk page. Don't worry too much. I think you could improve it by treating the Iona thing in one place. The church section ... split off the first paragraph Aldfrith the scholar, run it from or into the Iona part and then perhaps into the Golden Age. A few other shifts of text, and the "choppiness" would be mostly gone (it can never really go). E.g. you've got most of the church section in Aldfrith's Northumbria rather than "Relations with the Church", "Aldfrith's Northumbria" section is not clearly distinguishable in content from the rest of the article, etc, etc. If you changed the first, the actual church and Wilfrid section would still be small and not greatly adequate IMHO, but you can put that down to Deacon's idiosyncrasies. I didn't oppose your nomination after all, just commented. The article should pass through whether you respond to me or not. Best regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers

As soon as Ireland and Scotland come into it, it gets that much harder, because a different set of primary sources and cultural instincts come into play (the Scots and Irish look at it from their angle, the way I look at everything—tiresomely, I know—from a Cornish angle). Who would have thought the going could get tougher than for Offa? I'm thinking of having a crack at an A-S article myself, so that you can nag me back for once! Edward the Elder interests me most. I'm horribly committed, for the time being, though. Keep up the good work: I don't know where you get the patience from. qp10qp (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Small- to medium-sized favor

As someone who has to deal with "Background" sections on a near daily basis, I thought perhaps you could offer some advice at Boydell Shakespeare Gallery. We currently have a "Shakespeare in the 18th century" section that a peer reviewer has suggested we cut down rather dramatically. Because the article is basically ready for FAC, I am reluctant to do this, but if it would really improve the article, of course you know I would. Thus, I am soliciting the opinions of "outside readers". I cannot step back enough from the article (particularly since it is about the eighteenth century!) to tell how much background information is needed. If you have a moment to read the article and offer an opinion on the matter here, I would really appreciate it. Awadewit | talk 03:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look -- might be a couple of days; I have my head deep in another article at the moment. I should have a little more spare time this week, though so I'll try to look tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Do not remove sockpuppet tags. It is considered vandalism. Dofgfrtdd (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Marskell (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, y'all. Mike Christie (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote

Bingo! It looks fine now. Cheers. qp10qp (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Terra Nova copyedits

Thank you, Mike for doing this. I've been through, and I'll only comment on where I have some disagreement - mostly I agree with you.

• In the lead, you've changed "fulfilled" to "completed". On reflection I think both are wrong; the scientific group stopped their work because the expedition ended. Such work is probably never "completed". I think a more neutral "carried out" would be better.
• I have a real problem with your revision after the words "was unsuccessful". It has to be clear that the exploring group that suffered from frostbite, hunger, etc. was a small team, sent to explore King Edward VII Land in the east, which failed to land there and transferred to Victoria Land in the north, where they suffered a series of misfortunes. Trouble is, it takes too many words to say all this. And they were by no means the only ones in the expedition to suffer from frostbite, hunger and so on. What I suggest is that we simplify matters. Having already indicated in the lead that Victoria Land was explored, why not simply end the sentence at "unsuccessful"?
• Background section: "Furthest South" (or Farthest South) is standard terminology in polar exploration, and I think should be retained as such in the article.
• Final relief effort section: it wasn't only Atkinson who learned the nature of the disaster. Could we say "the nature of the disaster was revealed"?
• All else I'm fine with. I was a bit disturbed, though, to see the note about "28 intermediate revisions not shown". What can they be? Brianboulton (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

All your points are very reasonable, and I've edited the draft to conform and applied it to the article. I did notice some other points as I did the copyedit and I'll make a few more comments at FAC in a moment. Mike Christie (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the "28 intermediate revisions" just means that I did the copyedit in 29 separate little edits. If you click on the history tab on any page, and choose radio buttons for versions several apart, then choose "compare", you'll see what I mean. Mike Christie (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Antarctic Map

Mike, please take a look at this map of Ross Island & tell me if you think it's worth considering. When it's enlarged you can read the details - Cape Crozier, Cape Evans, Hut Point and one or two other relevant places. I know it's restricted to one area, but with a suitably explanatory caption it could be useful, maybe. Brianboulton (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm currently working on a laptop with a screen resolution set to 1280 x 1024, and I can't easily read the text on the map even when it's fully expanded, even with reading glasses. I think what would be better (if you can find it) would be a map without any existing labelling, showing the area you want to cover; you could then use a graphics program to add labels. I've done this for a couple of my own articles: see Image:English kingdoms 600.gif and Image:Ireland early peoples and politics.gif for a couple of examples. I have to admit it doesn't look quite as professional as the Ross Island map you found, but this approach does let you make it readable and it lets you include whatever is relevant to the article.

I've supported the article, so if you can't find another map, no problem. Congratulations on an outstanding article, by the way; it's a very impressive piece of work. Mike Christie (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Map

I still think the borderless map looks rubbish and is not in following with how country maps are supposed to be on Wikipedia thats for sure. However, I do not care about midlanders and southerners so it doesn't particularly bother me if Mercia and Wessex articles do not look good because of the map. Northumbria on the other hand I have created a new specific, seperate map for. Its borders are well sourced in historical documentation. I have left the areas surrounding it as one colour with no name, as you have claimed on the other map there was a problem with some of the territories, though Northumbria isn't the case. I feel this is a reasonable compromise. Regards. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

SF

When I was at the MLA convention in December, I saw a book display that reminded me of you - it was at the McFarland publishing company booth. Just in case you don't know about them, they have a series on SF that looks useful in addition to a lot of other popular culture books that touch on SF. Awadewit | talk 03:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

File:David,larry.JPG		My RFA
		Thank you muchly for your support in my recent request for adminship, which was successfully closed on 76%, finishing at 73 supports, 23 opposes and 1 neutral. The supports were wonderful, and I will keep in mind the points made in the useful opposes and try to suppress the Larry David in me! Now I'm off to issue some cool down blocks, just to get my money's worth! Kidding btw. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

British Museum and what is in there

Okay, casting about wildly, trying to find out a source for my one remaining issue with Gerard, Archbishop of York. (Yeah, I know. It's an Archbishop of York, I get bored with Archbishops of Canterbury sometimes) Down in the legacy section, someone put in that some of his verses are preserved in the British Museum. The ODNB doesn't mention such a thing. None of my other sources say it either. I hate to lose the information, since I'm pretty sure it's possible, but I have no idea how to verify the information. Any ideas/clues/pointers? Ealdgyth | Talk 03:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit request

You did a good copyedit on my Terra Nova article. I wonder if you have time for a similar job on my Discovery Expedition article which is FAC at the moment. One of the comments is that some of the prose is "awkward", but he doesn't specify where. The article could surely do with a fresh eye so, if you can find time I'd be grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply & willingness to copyedit Discovery Expedition. There's no indication that on the discussion page that its FAC has been archived. I'm in the middle of dealing with a raft of 20-odd points that have been posted just today! Brianboulton (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I undersatnd the position & have just had a message from Ealdgyth. If you are prepared to copyedit, can I suggest you wait a day or two until I have dealt with her points? The copyedit might be easier then. Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Mike, I think I'm about through with Ealdgyth - you can read her comments on the Discovery Expedition discussion page, & she sounds pretty supportive. So, when you're ready, please feel free to copyedit. I note you made a start before I asked you to pause. I've rephrased the last para of the Forerunners section since you edited it, so please look at this again, but I think it's OK. I won't do any more tinkering until you've done your stuff - I hope it won't be too onerous. I've put a lot into this article, and am quite prepared to do whatever extra is necessary to take it forward. When we're through, then assuming that you feel able to support, I'd be pleased if you'd advise me as to the protocol for renominating it for FAC.

Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth has now indicated support so I have renominated. Here we go! Brianboulton (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Images on Coenwulf of Mercia

Hello,

I moved to Commons: three images you created to illustrate the article Coenwulf of Mercia. When you create content under a free licence or public domain, don't hesitate to upload it directly to Commons, so other Wikimedia projects can benefit from the content (in this case, the translation to French and possibly to German and Italian of this article). Thanks for the work. Sincerely Jérôme (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Mercia redux

It is perfectly all right to repeat the material. On the other hand, personally I would reword it a touch—even if to the same effect. It's nice to freshen things up, I think. I sometimes eat the same dinner two days running, but I like to rearrange the potatoes. qp10qp (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Historians, training, and you...

Don't sell yourself short, Mike. You are pretty good at this history thing, even if I can't get you that interested in the really interesting stuff, ecclesiastical history! You're careful, you read well and you don't misuse your sources. You would have done well in a history program, if the politics didn't drive you insane. (Yes, that's why I'm not a professor, I didn't like the politics). So feel free to rip my writing to shreds. One of the first things I learned as a upper level history student was that arguing (gently, mind you, gently, with proper respect for the drink you probably had in your hand so you didn't spill it) was good for your writing and your research. That's why so much sitting around and gabbing happens at conferences, because that's how new ideas and interpretations are sparked. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment; I appreciate it. The research methods sound like something I'd have enjoyed! Mike Christie (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Augustine of Canterbury

I think I'm as ready as I'll ever be for it to be ripped to shreds. Hopefully, my additions of background material weren't hopelessly muddled. I went back and looked at Bede, and it appears the long letter of replies to Augustine's questions is a separate letter from the one about how the eccelsiastical offices should be set up (the famous 12 bishops under London, 12 under York letter). So I kept them separate. Take your time getting to it, I've got plenty to occupy me. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to have a go tomorrow, but I'm going to be pretty busy for the next few days (actually the next few weeks). This is something I would like to do, though, so I'll try to make time. On Gerard, did you get that sorted out? Sorry I didn't respond, but I see Angus did. Mike Christie (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still hunting on Gerard. I figure it'll turn up somewhere, somehow. I'm not sure he's going to have enough to his article to try for FA on him, so even with a citatation needed tag, we can probably squeak by on GA with him. And whenever you get the time on Augustine. I will be out of town around from the 17th to about the 26th or 27th, so it isn't a huge hurry. (I'll have some internet for some of that time, but the 20-21-22 I'll be grooming at a horse show, so I will NOT have the energy to do Wikipedia (think 5am mornings and 11pm nights with lots of horses in between)). I do appreciate you looking it at!Ealdgyth | Talk 05:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be addressing User:RelHistBuff's concerns this afternoon, if you want to hold off anything until this evening (here in the States) so that the text is stable. Have to run errands first, then I should be able to take care of them, or at least most of them. The overweight issue on the background isn't something I can do a whole heck of a lot about, since there just isn't that much to expand on his actual mission. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'm at work (been off sick for a few days -- that's why I had some spare time yesterday to do this) so I won't be back to it till tonight anyway. I'll take another look at the background myself; it's usually possible to tighten up that sort of thing but as you say not much is known. I think it's OK to include less relevant material to help set historical context. Mike Christie (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Œthel!

To be honest, I haven't the faintest idea. It seems like it could be, but if you look at the Cenreds on the PASE, none of them appear anywhere as Cœnred although there are variants with æsc: Kænred and Cenræd for example. Sorry, not much help here I'm afraid, Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Left-aligned pictures

I saw your response to the comment about the positioning of the left-aligned pictures in the Discovery article. The Ross picture looks wrong on the right, because he is looking to the right, away from the article. The penguin picture can easily be moved down its paragraph, and I have temporarily done this. Can you see what you think? I'll shift Ross if I have to, but I'd rather not. Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. I must say I'd never seen that rule before, and a quick check of my own FAs reveals two of the first four I looked at that disobey it. I suggest you respond saying you've moved one and would like to leave the other, and see what other reviewers say. I may comment at the MOS page; that rule is often going to be quite onerous. Mike Christie (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

AEthelred and Augustine

Sure, whenever you can find the time to look at Augustine. While you're looking (and I'm gone) look at Hubert Walter also? I actually managed to attract a PRer (strange, that!) and it's shaping up pretty nicely, if I do say so myself. I'm going to add some stuff tonight, but I think it's pretty close too. I'm trying to line things up for when I get back, I'll have a good chunk of time until early May to work on getting articles through GAN and FAC, so I'm trying to prep ahead of time. And you know you're always welcome to drop something on my lap to look at, and/or add ecclesiastical stuff to. I should be back the 27th or 28th (depends on weather/shooting schedule/tiredness), so there is plenty of time. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hubert I'm not worried about the information or sourcing (we're into my period here) but just general prose. I'm an indifferent writer, not a "brilliant" writer, and need constant tweak-tweak-tweaking of my prose to get it bearable. Would love to have you edit it, as you're quite good at it. Actually, you not knowing much about the period is good, because you can see where I've assumed too much knowledge of the reader. And I changed to support, I thought I did that a few days ago, sorry! Did one prose tweak to the lead. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Discovery gets star

[[Discovery Expedition is now FA. Thank you for your help in getting it there Mike. Brianboulton (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetical

Æthelred of Mercia, A or E? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It was originally a separate letter, called æsc, but I think nowadays it's usually filed as if it were "ae". That's what the defaultsort param seems to get set to, anyway. Mike Christie (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I noticed when checking categories that Wiki sorts it to the end, after Z. Does that make sense to you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'd think it should sort as if it were spelled "Aethelred" and so on. I thought that was what the defaultsort param did. Mike Christie (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed it at Category:Wikipedia featured article candidates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's because the FAC doesn't have the DEFAULTSORT param set. Take a look at Category:8th century deaths; the "Æ" articles sort like "Ae" because they have a DEFAULTSORT param on the article itself. Mike Christie (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ha. OK, so it goes as Ae. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure I've been clear, what happens is that "{{DEFAULTSORT:Aelle of Sussex}}" (or something similar) gets added to the article, and that parameter controls the sort. If it had read "{{DEFAULTSORT:Elle of Sussex}}" it would be sorted under "E". So the connection of "Æ" to "Ae" isn't anything built in, it's just the particular DEFAULTSORT parameter that was chosen. We could change it if we wanted to. Mike Christie (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC: Æthelred of Mercia

Don't hit me! Sorry it's so big....Ealdgyth | Talk 22:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I won't hit you, I'll thank you. A detailed review is what every FAC nominator wants; couldn't be better. I'll get right on it. Mike Christie (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Your changes tonight look good. I got hit with an EC while trying to update the FAC page, then called away for a while, so I'll do the strikeouts tomorrow. I'm going to go soak in the tub, grab a beer, and go to bed! Ealdgyth - Talk 05:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Mike; I expect to take it slow over the next few days as lots of people are out. Thanks for letting me know! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Edmund the Martyr

I you dare want to help with the arbitration, please do! I've been labeled as troublesome at Edmund the Martyr. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to help reach a consensus but I don't have time to lead the discussion. If Jackyd101 or RamblingMan take it on, I think we have a good chance of a productive outcome. Mike Christie (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll post the requested follow up in the next 12 hours. -- Secisek (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. copyediting and review

(Copied over from my talk page:) Mike, many thanks for this. Let me point to two useful things you might have time to do... First, I think that the folk looking at The President are feeling a little as though they are going around in circles before FAC. Perhaps you could take a look at their article: should they just nominate it now? Second, it'd be grand to have an FA Review of Mario Vargas Llosa. Again, many thanks! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(Copied over from my talk page:) Yes, many thanks for such a speedy review! Anything you have time to do would be magnificent: a GA review of I, the Supreme would be most appreciated. I'm not sure it's quite ready, but it is pretty close, and your comments could set it on the final straight. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Osthryth

Hi! You asked me for a secondary reference for the possible reasons for Osthryth's murder[1]. The ODNB article by Ann Williams, "Æthelred (d. after 704)" (Oxford University Press, 2004), includes a sentence: "Deteriorating relations with Northumbria are suggested by the murder in 697 of Queen Osthryth". There is also footnote 127 on page 390 of the Oxford World's Classics edition of The Ecclesiastical History of the English People edited by Judith McClure and Roger Collins, translated by Bertram Colgrave, (1994, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0192838660): "[hostility of the Bardney monastery to the cult of Oswald] and the murder of Osthryth suggest how sensitive the Mercians remained over earlier attempts of the Northumbrians to dominate them." I know that isn't quite what I said but I suspect you can construct something along similar lines. DrKiernan (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK -- I will put something in. Thanks for the ref! I am working on the WP:MMM project right now, which is getting close to deadline, but should get to Aethelred this weekend at the latest. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

		Thanks for the support
		Thanks for your support on my request for adminship, which passed 92/2/2. I have some bad news, though. I really want that #1 spot on WP:WBFAN (oh how I wished it was listed by current FA's). Once I reach my 58th FA, I might consider taking my eyes off that page, so others can catch up a bit ;) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but you'll run out of hurricanes one day; Mike will never run out of obscure Anglo-Saxon kings, trust me. qp10qp (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Catherine de' Medici/archive1

I'd very much appreciate it if you could spare the time to glance over this article. If you are too busy, don't worry, but do look out for it at FAC in the near future (all being well). All the best. qp10qp (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm so used to the high quality of your prose that coming up with comments on your articles seems like lèse majesté. However, I have temporarily paused my FA work and so I should have time -- if not tonight then this weekend. I look forward to it. Mike Christie (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. It's far from perfect, though—both too big and, for the material, too short (scratches head). qp10qp (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Augustine

I took a quick glance at the concerns, and they all look doable. I'm on the road for the (hopefully) last night (Car decided to give us some trouble in Texarkana, of all places, and had to have its wheel assembly completely replaced, losing about 7 hours of driving time in the process... whee. So we'll be home late Friday and have to get a rush photography order out ASAP that night.) thanks for the kind words, and for the copyedit! I'm excited to get home, it's been a long week or so. The show went well (we didn't show any of our horses, we were helping some friends show theirs) and a couple of their horses won their classes, and a mare went Grand Champion mare at the show, so that's good. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad it went well. I'm staying busy on WP:MMM at the moment but I look forward to seeing you progress with Augustine. Mike Christie (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Pelagius

Ugh. That's ugly. Unfortunately, it's more theological and earlier than I usually deal with. I'm inclined to just cut the section out, honestly. Might do a google search and see if it's a copyvio. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

GGM

Hi Mike

I believe that we are all set with our article. Thanks for all the feedback Jenbren (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:NSTC_aerial_photography_archive.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:NSTC_aerial_photography_archive.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MECU≈talk 17:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Sources

The Anglo-Saxonists until quite recently were quite backward about source stuff, so I understand it is not really that easy to discuss on every topic. Have you at least looked at the essays on Bede in Campbell's Essays in Anglo-Saxon History? My favorite discussions of Bede are Bede and the English, a printed [revised] lecture that may be hard to get hold of if you are relying on buying rather than lending. It has some stuff about Bede and Augustine/Gregory, but is focused on how and why Bede uses the terms "English" and "Saxon" to refer to the English. Many others from the Jarrow Lectures series have good stuff about the venerable one. Best of all Goffart's controversial essay in Narrators of Barbarian History. Goffart's a more sophisticated historian than prolly anyone else who's written about Bede, so it's at least worth reading for that reason alone. He discusses so much that reading that alone will be highly beneficial. Gransden's Historical Writing in England is a hardcore must have for English medieval historical sources, though as I don't own it, I'm a bit of a hypocrite recommending it, and don't remember how it discussed Bede (mainly used it for Anglo-Norman stuff). :) This is a pretty good list of Bede stuff. I think working Bede or his HE up to FA standards, if you ever did this, would prolly give a very big net gain to your AS articles, much bigger than any individual topic, as source stuff really is the bread and butter of history. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding articles where this is done well, the one you cite is a good example. Some of Angus' are too; e.g. Áedán mac Gabráin and Óengus I of the Picts do it well too. Ideally all these articles would just be source commentary, and while I know you think I'm too extreme on this, I don't think it does any harm for one or two people to be like this. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Edmund the Martyr

The article can stand some improvement by going through another GAN, however, further work is pointless while the SPA continues to hold it hostage. This needs to be resolved first. -- Secisek (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Murder, Madness and Mayhem

Thanks for you note Mike; looks like a very interesting project. I'll drop in and out, and help where I can before 10 April. Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Btrieve

I don't have a problem with someone at a commercial enterprise working, if they follow NPOV. Your friend has never edited Wikipedia before though? If so, it may be little much to expect that they can step in and save a FAR. But I have noted that we can hold on the review. You can update there. If someone starts working, by all means we'll leave it open. Marskell (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Margaret Storey & Title pairs for future redirects

Thanks for your diligent interest. I started treating the Storey "case" (or perhaps i should say, the Elizabeth Eyre one) as closed, i think bcz the Rdrs had been created, but i think i'd never anticipated the other Margaret Storey. AFAI've thot it thru, it seems to me that there'd have been a role for three Tpfr refs once the kids writer was ID'd as probably article-worthy, but now that you've created the Dab, that's the proper place for a Margaret Storey (mystery writer) rd-lk to make association between the potential article and the Dab. Tpfr is typically the stand-in for a Dab that can't yet be created bcz its targets don't yet exist to need Dab'n; i notice your question when i made a new entry anticipating 3 recording labels named DMZ, and the Dab that should point at them once there are two articles. (When only 1 has been created, i think the potential Dab page DMZ (label) should be created as a Rdr to it; a cmt -- perhaps ready to be turned into a Dabn hatnote -- at the top of the article would be a good idea, to help an editor who follows the Rdr there, but Tpfr, unlike a comment, can show up on a what-links-here check, as presumably you realize from finding Tprf that way.
If you think i've neglected something, you could be right. Lemme know, here for a week, or at my talk later. Tnx again.
--Jerzy•t 05:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I follow; thanks for the explanation. It sounds like nothing else needs to be done on Margaret Storey (except wait for someone to create the mystery writer article). Thanks for the update -- let me know if you need any actions from me. Mike Christie (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

El Senor Presidente

I'm a little confused how to "press the button"... would you be able to do it for me?--Mfreud (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

FAT

In case you didn't notice, I replied on my talk page. Thanks for the welcome! Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Augustine

No, thank YOU for going through it and being picky. Its very hard to copyedit your own prose. I owe you one, for when you're ready to bring another to FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

So now the big question, take it direct to FAC or not? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I would. I don't think you'll get through without questions and nitpicking, but it's at the level of quality that I look for when I nominate. I never go to PR or GA any more, and I also make sure that the FAC is my focus for the week or two it's up; you evidently have the energy and time for a FAC that needs attention. I will probably support without any further comments, though not immediately; I'll read it one more time after you nominate. I say go for it! Mike Christie (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's on my watchlist. I'll comment in the next few days; good luck! Mike Christie (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, it made a huge difference. Yep, Augustine's my first FA. I'm so ... excited. (I know it's silly, but...) I think Easy Jet is next, he's short and not a bishop, so a change of pace. So no hurry on anything with Hubert Walter, I still have a few sources to work in on Hubert. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Years in Ireland

Hi. I note your very quick revert of my links at Flann Sinna. There were too many redlinks in this case but when the articles (years) are created I intend to link in order to support readers of the "years" series. Once the "red" is removed the links do not affect the reader experience in any way. Sarah777 (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Miguel_Angel_Asturias

First, let me say kudos for coordinating such an intriguing project in this class. I'm sure the students are getting an invaluable experience out of it.

As for the article at hand, the involved parties have been making good progress, but many of the issues I left at the GA Review still need attention. ("Political career" still short and choppy; "Exile and rehabilitation" and "Family life" still need more depth.) As I said, it's getting there. – Scartol • Tok 21:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Thomas de Rossy/archive1

Mike, if you have time, can you comment on the peer review of Thomas de Rossy. I'm particularly interested in any of the normal prose problems, but also with issues of context. Article doesn't have one of those background sections so many deem necessary, so I'm wondering what to put. 1) Scotland 2) diocese of Galloway 3) Schism? That sound good? All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

EyeSerene RFA

I find that it's more about user preference. I'm not so anal about it, so I allow about five or so supports before transclusion. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 02:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re "what else is needed for GA" section

I think that's a great idea (and in fact I've used similar techniques in the past). You're also right in noting that the page is getting rather confusing! However, as it's Awadewit's GA review, I'm a bit hesitant to second-guess what she might say when she revisits the article. I think our copyedit is, not finished as such, but at a point where we might qualify for GA, so I've suggested asking Awadewit to look it over again. I think that's best coming from the MMM editors, but I'm also conscious of their deadline, so I may ping her myself if time starts slipping ;) Of course, any other advice you have is more than welcome! All the best, EyeSerene^talk 11:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Quite right; I'd assumed it was yours but of course the reviewer should be the one to summarize. Mike Christie (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I did wonder... put it down to the confusing talk-page :) EyeSerene^talk 12:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I feel like a complete idiot. You're absolutely right, I have got Dictator novel on hold as a GA reviewer, and Awadewit has the same for Facundo. I was copyediting Facundo at the time I read your message, and under the influence of what I can only describe as 'tunnel vision', I confused the two. Please accept my sincere apologies... and I'll put together a 'to-do' list for Dictator novel as my next task. Incidentally, I think part of the reason for my mix-up is that the talk-page on Facundo is even worse :P Mea culpa! EyeSerene^talk 13:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the reason I believed you so quickly was that I'm entirely capable of making exactly that mistake. Glad we got it sorted out! Mike Christie (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It happens! I'd love to know how jbmurray manages to juggle so many articles when I'm having problems with just two ;) I've put the list together btw, so back to copyediting... EyeSerene^talk 14:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

More to do

I'm hoping to have another look late tonight, but I have a busy offline day ahead first and have to go out this evening. I intend to do a thorough copyedit and then list some ways the article can be added to to meet Cirt's requests. I will be looking at some sources too, so that I may be able to help. The main editor has been working hard and I haven't checked his latest edits yet. Cirt could perhaps be asked to strike any comments that have been addressed since his review, but I don't think the article can pass yet.

I'm not a big signer upper. Unlike you and Awadewit, I am something of a plodder and can manage only a few things, I fear. But always tip me off if you need a hand with anything. qp10qp (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Signed up or not, it's a pleasure to have you helping. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 10:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it stands a chance now. The only single point against it might be fullness. But there's no rule on length for a good article, and I believe it is now a good short article on this writer. User:nathanlusignan has done a great job in the last few days. qp10qp (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: El Barnstar!

Thanks so much!  :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: My Blog

I just read over the comments you made on my talk page. As silly as it may sound I didnt realize that anyone outside of our class could or would read that- a novice perception perhaps. I actually do understand why images are important but it was a frustrating hold up in the FA process, is all I meant by that. I guess after spending countless hours in the library researching and then trying to take that information and make it into a concise helpful resource, and then to have it all come to a halt over a couple of images, it was a little agrevating. Thanks for the continued support- the copy editing, suggestions and help through all the technical hurdles we ran into along the way. We made it! Thanks again,--Mfreud (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your amazing work with the student editors of Murder, Madness, and Mayhem, especially in these rather frantic final stages... a barnstar with many thanks and much appreciation. jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

FA Team

Hey thanks so much for inviting me, that was quite unexpected. You mean I can just go to the members list and add myself? You realize I haven't actually written an FA before right? I was under the impression that it was an Invitation only, 1 FA minimum group but if not then sure I’ll be more than happy to jump in as the junior member :P. Also thanks for the encouragement, I’ve been helping out where I can :) Acer (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'm in :) You know, now that I think about it, you're right invitation only would indeed be kind of anti-wiki. About the MMM work, yup its been a blast,I consider myself quite lucky to have found out about it early on and been able to follow the developments, its been quite a journey. Acer (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Facundo copyedit

Hi Mike. As you'll see on the talk page, I've tried to assemble the various remaining issues from above posts into a single to-do list. Would you mind if I (or you, if you prefer!) refactored your new copyedit comments to add them into the list? We've duplicated the cite needed comment, and per our previous discussion on this it may be less potentially confusing for the MMM. EyeSerene^talk 13:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Great minds think alike! Take another look ... Mike Christie (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just came back here to say "never mind", having noticed you'd already got it covered! EyeSerene^talk 14:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Btrieve 2

Joel, the other FAR closer, removed the article. I was going to do the same, to be honest. Twelve days with no edits is more than generous when a review is overtime. Plus the page is hugely overloaded.

Also, I was thinking that it makes a lot more sense to work on it toward another FAC. You can move at your own pace and you'll have exposure to the main room, not the secondary one. Sorry, anyway, and good on you trying to get people involved. Marskell (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so hasty: FAC is not an order of magnitude harder than FAR. In theory, throughput quality should be the same. I've closed most for two years and, ya, there's a bit of allowance for older articles. But an article leaving FAR is not given a free pass or different requirements. I really do think it would be better to work toward FAC because you can set your deadline. Marskell (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could pick up a related article that has never been through the process. That might be best, in some ways. If established editors are watching it, NPOV need not be a problem. Marskell (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My RfA...

Thank you...

...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! Once again, thank you. Your calm, rational input and guidance, over at the content review workshop as well as with the FA-Team, has been inspirational... and despite all those intriguing buttons I certainly don't intend to stop doing what I enjoy ;)
EyeSerene^talk 16:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Facundo

Thanks for your offer of help Mike. I can't help feeling like I've let the MMM editors down with my copyedit, although I keep telling myself that's illogical as I have no access to the books they used. Unfortunately the plagiarised sections were pretty well-written (as one might expect!), so I let them stand virtually unaltered. Another pair of eyes would be great though - I fear the whole business may have rather devalued my currency, and further help might be better coming from someone else. EyeSerene^talk 11:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I saw, your work was fine. I just felt that it was important to offer another pair of hands as an act of support -- I didn't mean to displace you, and if you could continue to work there that would be great, of course. I can't know for sure, but it does seem that they simply made a mistake, and in the context of what they were expecting the response probably seemed harsh -- they're using words like "shocked". I don't want to downplay the significance of the problem, but I wanted to do something to make them feel like they weren't pariahs and that we trust them. Plus they now have extra work to do and of course I wanted to support them on that. So let's work together on it -- if you can get to copyedit the new material before me, please do. Different copyeditors always see different things anyway, so we should both look if we can.

On another note, I don't think I've worked with you before, and I must say that if I hadn't already voted for you in your RfA I would certainly be doing so now. Judgement and an even temper are the most important characteristics for an admin, and you have those qualities in spades. It's a pleasure to work with you. Mike Christie (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, no devalued currency! Such things are always a bit of a shock, but let's move on... You've let nobody down! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You're both very kind ;) There's no doubt that it was a valuable lesson to learn - I just wish that, as the FA-Team member overseeing their GA preparation, I could have spared the MMM editors from having to learn it in quite such a painful way. However, I'm keen to pick things up and dive in once again, and I'm hugely relieved the MMMers seem to feel the same way. EyeSerene^talk 17:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike! Thank you so much for helping my group members and I on this project! Thank you! Bessiec (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Dorothy Malone (writer)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Dorothy Malone (writer), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Cheers, CP 22:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Mayhem!!

		Barnstar of Murder, Madness, and Mayhem
		On behalf of Murder, Madness, and Mayhem, this barnstar is to thank you for your hard work and patience in motivating, mentoring, and moulding the work of student editors, and helping them to achieve excellence in research and writing. For all your hard work, your tireless copy-editing, encouragement, and organization, we are truly grateful. Thank you so much! On behalf of the entire class of UBC's SPAN312. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)