User talk:Mike Christie

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:Mike Christie/Archive/Archive02. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report HouseBlaster 82 3 0 96 Open 00:50, 23 June 2024 3 days, 23 hours no report

Limited availability -- I will be travelling between 6 November and 20 November, and may have limited access to the net for part of that time

Eardwulf anew

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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.

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)