User talk:Amitchell125/Archive3

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 05:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Divergent version of Danelaw
I just found User:Amitchell125/danelaw, which may have diverged too much from the article now. I noticed it as its categories are not userfied. Did you want to do something with this, like add colons to the categories, or repaste the current article? im just trying to keep usernames out of categories. no big deal, thanks for your obvious hard work at a level of detail i have not even tried to approach.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Edmund the Martyr
well done in enabling the article to become a good article again. Some of us who got burnt last time were watching and hoping but, and I can only speak for myself, felt if I got involved other not so helpful editors might join in. Well done and thanks.Edmund Patrick – confer 06:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Request
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Norman_conquest_1066.svg <- any chance you could possibly add Battle of Fulford to the list? Harold Hardrada took York in a bloody battle that, had York won, would almost certainly have kept Britain Saxon after 1066. I'm poor at image stuff so don't want to ruin the picture trying to add it.. Thanks. ~A Mysterious Stranger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.79.195 (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC) ...
 * request granted... Hel-hama (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wessex
Hello Amitchell125. Can you explain your rationale for removing the infobox at the above article? Although I can appreciate your addition of the map, the simultaneous removal of the infobox seems to me to have removed an accessible presentation of certain pieces of information. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello PaleCloudedWhite - thanks for your message. It was remiss of me not to write in the talk page. I removed the infobox as it contained information that was unreliable, misleading, incomplete or a duplication of what was already in the lead section:


 * (i) unreliable - there has been much "scholarly debate" about the foundation of the kingdom and the only written account, in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, is not considered to be reliable by all scholars. In short, Wessex may not have founded in 519. (see Yorke, Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England p. 128 etc for a discussion);
 * (ii) misleading - the flags for Wessex, Essex, Sussex and Kent are anachronisms and should not appear in the article at all; it has been argued that Winchester did not become the political centre of Wessex until around the late ninth century; England was not fully unified in 927, as for many years following Æþelstān's death, the English peoples were at times ruled simultaneously by different kings (e.g. Edmund/Olaf II);
 * (iii) incomplete - even though there is a link to List of monarchs of Wessex, the inclusion of the four Wessex kings appears quite arbitrary and fails to take into account the existence of any subkings, or any period when Wessex had overlordship over other parts of Anglo-Saxon England (as described in Lapidge, The Blackwall Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, p.511 onwards);
 * (iv) a duplication of the lead section - everything worth keeping in the infobox is already in the lead section - or could easily be put there. Therefore the infobox could be considered to be an disinfobox. I think infoboxes are a very good idea on Wikipedia, but surely in this potentially complex article, a topographical map is of more use (and more attractive) than the infobox.


 * I will attempt to improve the lead section so that a well-presented summary of the article can be accessed. Hel-hama (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I confess I am not knowledgeable about this subject, and queried the infobox disappearance simply because of the lack of explanation for its removal. However your points above more than suffice in that regard! As an aside, am I right in thinking that your alternative username signature has a particular historical inspiration? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, PaleCloudedWhite. Hel-hama is Anglo-Saxon for 'grasshopper'... Hel-hama (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Reversion
Hey there, I just mistakenly rolled your edits back rather than revert them. The issue is that Hengist and Horsa were clearly not "people" just as Odin was not a "person". Of course, deities are not classified as people, regardless of the propaganda of the church. :) &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Bloodofox, in my mind the Saxons considered them to be real people, so I treated them as such, but your point is entirely valid. Hey, I must be feeling tired after a long day to forgotten they were legends... Hel-hama (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Anglo-Saxon documents
I changed some of the contents here, but I'm not sure it should be emptied & deleted. "Documents" to my mind are original manuscripts (at this period, or the Bayeux Tapestry) rather than copies; normally of things with no real claim to be literature. If it could be considered as literature, on a broad definition, it is a text, but might be a document also, especially if it only survives in a unique MS. Does that make sense? Maybe not. Lists and "records" are documents rather than texts. Going by the article, the Leofric Missal is both a document ("legal records") and contains texts, as well as standard liturgical stuff in Latin. Fiddly. Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

out-of-process emptying of Category:Archaeology of the kingdom of East Anglia
Please don't empty categories out of process, as you did with Category:Archaeology of the kingdom of East Anglia. If you think a category needs to be deleted, feel free to nominate it at Categories for Discussion, where the community has a chance to express their opinion about it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elene (poem), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Romans and Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Ricberht
I've had a go at reviewing this. It's a good piece of work, but I have to warn you that I really dithered in deciding whether this could meet the GA criteria given how little is known about him. I'm not sure whether writing it was brave or foolhardy! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Passed now, nice work. I placed it in the Royalty and Nobility section of the GAs rather than Monarchs, which I presume is the safest place. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Notification of user conduct discussion
You may wish to comment on a user conduct discussion regarding Paul Bedson, which can be found here. If you comment there you may wish to review the rules for user conduct comments first. You are receiving this notification because you commented at one of the articles or AfDs that are cited in the discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

TFA
Coming soon --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Anna of East Anglia
This is a note to let the main editors of Anna of East Anglia know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 9, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/December 9, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegates, , and , or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Anna (killed 653 or 654) was King of East Anglia from the early 640s until his death. Little is known of Anna's life or his reign, as few records have survived from this period. He was one of the three sons of Eni who ruled East Anglia, succeeding after Ecgric was killed in battle by Penda of Mercia. Anna was praised by Bede for his devotion to Christianity and was renowned for the saintliness of his family. In 645 Cenwalh of Wessex was driven from his kingdom by Penda and whilst living as an exile at the East Anglian court and as a result of Anna's influence, he was converted to Christianity. Upon his return from exile, Cenwalh was able to re-establish Christianity in his own kingdom and the people of Wessex then remained firmly Christian. Following the attack in 651 by Penda on the monastery at Cnobheresburg, which Anna richly endowed, he was forced by Penda to flee into exile. He may have travelled to the western kingdom of the Magonsæte and returned in about 653, but East Anglia was attacked again by Penda soon afterwards and at the Battle of Bulcamp the East Anglian army, led by Anna, was defeated by the Mercians, and Anna and his son Jurmin were both killed. He was succeeded by his brother, Æthelhere. (Full article...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Wuffa
I was going to wait to see what he or she had to say, but you're in BRD. Do try not to be protective simply because it's a GA, though; that's not a reason in itself to not remove chunks if they don't meet standards - the point is that they do (in my, and presumably your, opinion). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have read up on WP:BRD and will do my best to follow the advice you and the essay have given. Many thanks. Hel-hama (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Precious
  East Anglia

Thank you for quality articles on the people and history of East Anglia, such as Anna of East Anglia and Edmund the Martyr, and for your work in the Guild of Copy Editors - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Edmund the Martyr
Links,sorted, have you seen all the foreign language bots are changing the title already. Look at the history. I think this could be tricky. Edmund Patrick – confer 18:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The bots needn't make any difference: the English version should stand as the correct version. Hel-hama (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have brought the events to the attention of User talk: The Rambling Man with whom I have worked before, and he has a history with Edmund the Martyr. I am not so sure about the bots, an interesting way to get a name change. Edmund Patrick – confer 19:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)