User talk:Mike Christie/Archive02

Ace Science Fiction Specials
Hello. I see that you created this article. I was considering moving it to List of Ace Science Fiction Specials, to match the other articles in Category:Lists of Ace Books. I just wanted to check with you to see if you viewed this as controversial before I did it. If you would prefer, I can list it at WP:RM. --After Midnight 0001 21:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it would be fine as a dab, but I think it's not quite like the other lists, so I'm not sure about the retitle. The Ace SF Specials were launched as a separate series, and given that title by Ace.  The other lists are just lists of titles from Ace's output, sorted by genre and so on.  So I think the current title is perhaps better.  If you don't agree, let's go to WP:RM and get some consensus there -- I'd be happy with your suggestion if other editors concur.  I don't think there's enough activity on the Ace page to mention it there, though you could try.  Thanks for asking, by the way. Mike Christie (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I trust your judgment on this. I have no subject matter knowledge here and just came across it in the midst of a housekeeping task.  (If you check my edit history, you will see a little string of edits where I've taken articles that were not lists out of list cats.)  When I saw this article in the cat, I initially thought that it could be intentional, but also that it could have just been a naming error.  As much as I know that people need to remember that people don't WP:OWN things, I also think that we sometimes have people who go trundling into things that they don't know anything about and make inappropriate changes.  I don’t want to be one of “those people”, which is why I came to you, hoping for (and getting) some SME knowledge. --After Midnight 0001 04:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ace Science Fiction Specials
Hello. I see that you created this article. I was considering moving it to List of Ace Science Fiction Specials, to match the other articles in Category:Lists of Ace Books. I just wanted to check with you to see if you viewed this as controversial before I did it. If you would prefer, I can list it at WP:RM. --After Midnight 0001 21:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it would be fine as a dab, but I think it's not quite like the other lists, so I'm not sure about the retitle. The Ace SF Specials were launched as a separate series, and given that title by Ace.  The other lists are just lists of titles from Ace's output, sorted by genre and so on.  So I think the current title is perhaps better.  If you don't agree, let's go to WP:RM and get some consensus there -- I'd be happy with your suggestion if other editors concur.  I don't think there's enough activity on the Ace page to mention it there, though you could try.  Thanks for asking, by the way. Mike Christie (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I trust your judgment on this. I have no subject matter knowledge here and just came across it in the midst of a housekeeping task.  (If you check my edit history, you will see a little string of edits where I've taken articles that were not lists out of list cats.)  When I saw this article in the cat, I initially thought that it could be intentional, but also that it could have just been a naming error.  As much as I know that people need to remember that people don't WP:OWN things, I also think that we sometimes have people who go trundling into things that they don't know anything about and make inappropriate changes.  I don’t want to be one of “those people”, which is why I came to you, hoping for (and getting) some SME knowledge. --After Midnight 0001 04:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

GIen's RfA: Thank you!
'''PS: YES YOU'RE RIGHT HARRY POTTER USES A BROOM! (BUT GOOD MOPS ARE HARD TO FIND!!)'''

Jaws-FA Candidacy
I've put Jaws up for FA candidacy. Thanks for your overall help and suggestions. Take a look.

History of Solidarity
That article, which you reviewed once, has been substantially improved and is now undergoing FAC review. Your comments, as that of a person familiar with the article, would certainly be appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A very Californian RfA thanks from Luna Santin

 * Thanks for your trust. I won't let you down. :) Luna Santin 19:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium
Please revisit the discussion. Uncle G 10:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Venture Science Fiction
Your recent edit to Venture Science Fiction (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 15:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

George P. Burdell GA on hold
Just a note to let you know I've placed the GA for George P. Burdell on hold; it just needs a fair use rationale for the image. Mike Christie (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Rationale has been added. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, looks good. Passed GA.  Mike Christie (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 15:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please reconsider that deletion at Controversies about the word niggardly
Hi Mike,

I'm asking a couple of other people interested in the article to comment on removing that part of the article. I also put a short comment there about why I had included it. Not a big deal either way, but please look over my comment and reconsider. Thanks, Noroton 00:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Asser
The article Asser you nominated as a good article has passed, see Talk:Asser for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. LordHarris 12:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

GAC talk note
Thanks for the heads up. MahangaTalk 14:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard de Southchurch
Thanks for your input. I've made some changes, would you care to have a look? Lampman 23:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw, congratulations on having Asser promoted to GA. I was really fascinated by the DMIS graphics, and I'd like to do something similar myself. Would it be possible to ask if you could give some pointers on how to get started? Lampman 00:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the GA promotion, and for the DEMIS intro, I'll have a look at it. Lampman 12:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

BOT to keep on top of WP:GA stats
Hey, I just wanted to point out, in case you don't have WP:BOTREQ on your watchlist, that I would be happy to work on the bot you suggested, if it is still desired. I got the impression from the request and GA talk page that you are still fleshing out what would be desired by a bot, so I'll keep my eye out there, and you can let me know if or when you'd like to proceed. I've only recently become acquainted with the GA process (by nominating one article and reviewing another), but I think that a bot as you suggest would be a good addition.

If you are going to be taking it to the GA "community" for opinions, I would suggest, if the decision is to go ahead, figuring out what specific criteria you would like tracked, so I can have something to work with. &mdash;Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 18:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cotton library
I'm sorry. I didn't realize the Cotton library was that famous. I've removed the tag and replaced it with an expand tag. Cheers! Cool  Blue Light my Fire! 23:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

2007 Texas Longhorn football team
Hi Mike, thank you very much for your note. I admit it is a little annoying, but that is mainly because the GA process is so slow. I listed that article about a month ago, so it is sort of like waiting for Christmas morning only to find coupons to be used on a later date. :-)

I don't blame you though, you did what you thought was best and I respect that. As you say, it will be good to talk this out a little and see what the consensus is.

I am of the opinion that if an article is stable today but might change in the future, that we should review it on the basis of what it is today. Otherwise, we may as well delist Mars and Pluto and for that matter we may as well take away FA from Solar System. We will undoubtably learn more about these topics in the future and in fact we have probes at or on the way to Mars and Pluto right now. I admit this is not a perfect analogy, but I do think it helps to illustrate what an article should be judged for what it is today.

I think the "stability" criteria is more about whether the article is changing too fast for the GA reviewer to decide what version to review, and whether (once reviewed) the article will just immediately change to fall out of GA standard. That is not likely to happen here for several months at a minimum.

In the best case, GA standards will be maintained through the whole season. It really only takes one or two well-written updates a week. At worst case, the article could be delisted if/when it no longer makes the criteria.

Anyway, thanks for your note and your opinion. I don't take it personally that you failed it, and I am glad you don't take it personally that I asked for a review.

Best regards and Hook 'em! Johntex\talk 16:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Insertion of pejorative terms
MoS states to write formally, also please do not insert pejorative terms. Addendum: Care to point out the consensus as per WP:CONSENSUS? :-). Matthew 21:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, Matthew. Taking your points in order:
 * "SF" and "sf" are both well-established formal abbreviations in use almost universally in all reference works on science fiction, and without any implication of informality. Tuck, Nichols, and numerous other encyclopedias can be cited in support of this.  I can give you a much longer list if you insist; let me know if you think it's useful.
 * There is no pejorative implication; there is no dictionary definition that has been cited that mentions such an implication. This is in contract with 'sci-fi', for which "Brave New Words", the new Oxford SF dictionary, says "its perceived overuse by the media and non-science-fiction readers has caused many fans to disdain its use, and its use may brand the user as an outsider".  Please cite something similar for "sf" if you want to make the case for "sf" being a pejorative term.
 * The relevant paragraph of WP:CONSENSUS is WP:CONSENSUS. I can't tell if you really believe "sf" is a pejorative term, or if you're just making a point; but I'd like to ask you to consider yourself one of "those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level".  The talk page discussion on this topic that came to a consensus was Talk:Science_fiction (with its reference to a prior discussion).  There were 6 editors in agreement that "sf" or "SF" was not inappropriate; you and Malkinann were the only ones with reservations, and Malkinann's were not about the pejorative nature of the term.  I hate to invoke supermajority; as the consensus policy says, it's not very desirable.  And in fact I'm not; I'm following WP:CONSENSUS by working via reverts and discussions.


 * Matthew, if you really have any data that says "SF" is a pejorative term, please present it. The link you posted in the prior discussion (this link) doesn't have anything in it that I can see that supports you.  I'd be very glad to see references that support you, since I would find them very interesting.  Without a reliable source that says something like "sf is sometimes regarded as a pejorative contraction" for "science fiction", I'm afraid you're going to find it hard to convince people.  Please give me something to work with.  Mike Christie (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no need to search the interwebs, all that matters is it offends people and is a violation of NPOV and MoS. "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)" - ess-eff is a bias term for a minority group of fans, put it this way: is there an SF-channel, or how often is the cliché ess-eff used outside fan-groups? Matthew 22:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Matthew, I am willing to be convinced it offends people, but you've given me no evidence that it does, other than your personal opinion. The other comments you make represent opinion and interpretation (possibly valid, but not demonstrably so).  You have to cite sources to support your point.  Please give me a reliable source that says something that supports your view.  Mike Christie (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ess-eff (or sf in non ess-eff usage) is such a commonly used word it's hard to search google. I guess you'll have to conduct interviews with some real sci-fi fans to prove ess-eff is not offensive (the onus is actually on you to prove it isn't as I'm the one disputing the accuracy (WP:V)). Peace, Matthew 22:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The section you cite says "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." I suppose this is somewhat subject to debate; you're certainly challenging the use of "sf"; I'm challenging the use of "science fiction" instead.  Would you be willing to accept mediation to resolve this?  If so I'll suggest something to that effect on the talk page and if others are willing I'll post a request.  Mike Christie (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, if it'll help bring closure and consensus to this extended issue. I'll accept when I wake up in the morning then. Matthew 22:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ethelbald of Mercia
Hiya Mike, good to hear from a fellow Anglo-Saxon enthusiast! Ethelbald is a very 'big' figure, and this article may possibly get longer before it is finished with, but you have made a very good stab at saying something sensible about him! Therefore if I make a number of points below, I hope you will realise that this is intended as constructive and not picking holes in your work. 1. 'Bretwalda'. I don't remember what the WP article on this title says, but in general the Chronicle use of the term is retrospective (Bede doesn't use the term) and may be part of a later (West Saxon) propagandist way of looking at their history, which might account for why AEthelbald and Offa were left out, despite being so important! In other words, they can justify making Bede's 'top rulers' into bretwaldas (whatever that really means), but they are not going to dignify the ruddy Mercians with such a title if they don't have to. 2. Maybe worth saying what a big dynastic crisis the end of Ceolred was: the end of the whole dynasty from Penda, so that they had to find a descendant of his brother Eowa, who died in the battle in which Oswald was slain. Therefore this whole business about Guthlac is important, because Ceolred was persecuting Ethelbald who, in turn, was probably aspiring to rule while Ceolred was still alive. Glance at my WP articles on Ealdwulf of East Anglia and Aelfwald of East Anglia. ceolred's widow was the great Werburgh, whose christian life was a key aspect of the reign of AEthelbald. 3. 'began a long period of mercian Domination' - some would say it had already been growing pretty much since Penda's time, and had reached considerable heights in the time of Wulfhere and Aethelred. And there are times in the 9th century when the reign of Wiglaf (after his recovery) looks pretty impressive too. 4. I don't think the big Clofesho of 746/7 or whenever was a response to Boniface's letter - I think it was at a time when the whole English church was looking to Boniface as leading a huge movement on the continent, and reforms in England were earnestly needed and being prompted through Boniface. Boniface's letter to Aelfwald of East Anglia is clearly in relation to two of the capitula of the Council, and he was writing to these rulers in advance of the Council trying to get them to support his reforms, precisely because he was worried about the path Ethelbald was following. But clearly the early to mid 8th century Mercian church (eg Peterborough (and it colonies), Breedon (Tatwine going to Canterbury), the painted book art of (say) Rome Gospels, Leningrad Gospels, Stockholm Codex Aureus, etc are showing developments which imply that patronage of the church was very strong in Mercia, and linked both to Northumbria and Canterbury. Boniface is being more political, and in his fiery letter to Ethelbald he doesn't really mean that Ethelbald is in danger of becoming a pagan or anything like that - at this stage Boniface is a Very elder statesman in Europe. 5. On Beornrad, glance at my WP thoughts on Beorna of East Anglia. 6. Would be good to quote the Biddle discussion of Repton sculpture and mausoleum, (if you haven't already, I forget). 7. I seem to remember that Ethelbald's regnal styles in his charters are important as evidence of his projection of the royal image. 8. Personally I think (see Aelfwald of East Anglia) that Ethelbald, although the senior ruler, made the Mercian ascendancy by having a completely friendly relation with East Anglia from the start, and therefore had all the East Anglian allies with him, i.e. he didn't dissipate Mercian energies in pointless hostility with East Anglia, he had a friendship policy through the Fen religious houses and so was able to concentrate on controlling the West Saxons (though he lost out to Cuthred) and the Northumbrians. Just some ideas to mull over - do what you like with them! Best wishes and keep at it! Dr Steven Plunkett 22:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Great job on Ace
As near as I can tell, you're the editor who did all the great work on the entry for Ace Books. I hope you don't feel I've messed things up with my recent additions -- if you think there's duplication or unnecessary additions, by all means revert or re-edit. (I seem to care more about the non-SF authors than you do.) I'm going to be working away at all the paperback entries as time permits, with particular attention to Dell mapbacks, but since your expertise on Ace is both wide-ranging and obvious, perhaps I'll leave that one in your good hands. Accounting4Taste 01:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment! Yes, I did a lot of work on the article, but I did have help, especially on copy-editing and improving prose.
 * Your changes look good to me. Glad to see you cited them -- since the article is currently FA that's great to see.  One thing did occur to me; your additions are around importance, rarity and collectability.  Material of that kind is now rather distributed around the article; see the section on prices in the titles section, for example.  Would a new section be worth it?  I am torn because I think if we did create a special section, we'd still want to refer to rare and important titles in the historical narrative and also in the discussion of title numbering.  What do you think?
 * By the way, let's continue this at Talk:Ace Books just in case someone else is interested. Mike Christie (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Venture Science Fiction Magazine
The article Venture Science Fiction Magazine you nominated as a good article has failed, see Talk:Venture Science Fiction Magazine for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a review. The Sunshine Man 17:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Venture Science Fiction Magazine
The article Venture Science Fiction Magazine you nominated as a good article has passed, see Talk:Venture Science Fiction Magazine for comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. ike9898 20:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

SF poll
How did you count User:Orange Mike's self-seemingly contradictory votes? --Belg4mit 02:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I assumed that he meant that either "SF" or "None" would be an acceptable outcome; he didn't think either was actually a bad way to write the article. If you think it's necessary I can elaborate the vote counting over on the talk page. Mike Christie (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, neveremind. --Belg4mit 12:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

StatisticianBot
Just to let you know, StatisticianBot has been approved by B/RFA! It will now run automatically each night. &mdash;Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 13:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Great; thanks for all the work on it. I've posted a note at the GAC talk page. Mike Christie (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sargon of Akkad
You failed this GA candidate because there "was no response" to the initial comments. In fact the article was substantially overhauled since the original comments were left. Please look again and re-consider. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you're correct; I'll reinstate it. Sorry about that.  I won't review it myself; I'll just put it back in the list; I'll remove the "On Hold" since it's been over 7 days; someone else can review it if they wish.  Thanks for letting me know. Mike Christie (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Image:ASC Parker page.png
Thanks for uploading Image:ASC Parker page.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
 * N.B. All images, regardless of copyright status require source information - i.e. where the digital image came from - this applies equally to images that are in the public domain because of their age. Madmedea 22:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to say thanks, you're the first person tonight who hasn't bitten my head off asking for a source. I know I'm being a pedant - but referencing an image is just as important as referencing a fact. Madmedea 22:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The thingy above is automatically generated, and I'm not an admin so I don't know how likely these are to actually get deleted. They're on my watch list so I'll find out soon! It would be good if there was a "no source" tag which made the difference between copyright and source a tad clearer. In a way I'm also loathe to deleted PD images - although many of those I've tagged tonight are "orphans" so there isn't much point in them being on here! - but the more I've edited WP the more I get why we have the policies. If this thing is really going to stand up to a "normal" encyclopeadia, it has to be referenced to the moon and back! Madmedea 23:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, I seem to have started a major barney..help! Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Madmedea 23:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ethelbald of Mercia‎
The article Ethelbald of Mercia‎ you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Ethelbald of Mercia‎ for things needed to be addressed. --Victor12 20:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

`

Arthur Sullivan
Do you think the Arthur Sullivan article is GA quality, and if not, what would need to be done to it to get it up to snuff. I note that in the Italian Wikipedia, the article is rated FA, so their standards must still be lower. Still, I think it's a pretty good article. -- Ssilvers 17:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, on a quick look, the images look fine, the article is stable, and the coverage looks broad. I didn't see any obvious problems with the prose either.  However, there are some sections that you don't give explicit citations for -- that will get you into trouble in a GA nom.  To pick a section at random, the subsection on Overtures has some cites, but e.g. these are uncited:


 * "However, even those delegated to his assistants were probably based on an outline he provided, and in many cases incorporated his suggestions or corrections."
 * "Thespis is now lost, but there is no doubt that it had an overture and that Sullivan wrote it."
 * "Toye’s Pirates overture, however, did not last long and is now lost."


 * There is more you could cite, but those are the sentences for which someone new to the topic might want to know whose authority or opinion is being cited. There are similar sentences elsewhere in the article, which I won't list in detail.


 * I didn't check for neutrality, but didn't see obvious issues. Hope that's useful. Mike Christie (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm taking the liberty of copying most of this over to Sullivan's talk page. -- Ssilvers 20:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ethelbald of Mercia
Congratulations!!! The article Ethelbald of Mercia you nominated as a good article has passed, see Talk:Ethelbald of Mercia for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. --Victor12 16:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, and the helpful comments. Mike Christie (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethelbald again
Hiya Mike, thanks for your message! I think there are a few papers by the Biddles floating around about Repton, and I am scratching around for my refs at present, but try: The claim that East Anglia (under AElfwald) and Mercia under AEthelbald were friendly, is based on the East Anglian patronage of Guthlac during Aethelbald's exile in Crowland (see Felix Life of Guthlac) and from the matriarchal prominence of Werburga as Mercian abbess and patroness, in whom the Kentish, East Anglian and Mercian dynastic lines and interests were united. As a daughter of Wulfhere and Eormenhild, granddaughter of Penda, Seaxburga and Eorconberht, great-granddaughter of Eadbald and Anna, and widow of the discredited Ceolred, her maternal side religious personal heredity is entirely Kentish and East Anglian, and it is likely that her father Wulfhere's conversion (and initial apprehension of Mercian power) came through his Kentish marriage, which came at or soon after his accession and provided the necessary southern alliances to reinforce his reign against the rivalry of Northumbria. Notice also the apparent extension of Medeshamstede patronage over the Middle Anglian and Mercian church, as a twin hub of religious hegemony together with East Anglian Ely, centred around the Fen. (Possibly Tatwine, who (probably at Repton) recommended Guthlac to go to Crowland in 699, was the same who later ruled Breedon, and rose in 731 to Canterbury? - as I suggested in 'The Mercian Perspective' in Sally Foster's St Andrews Sarcophagus volume, Dublin 1998.) The prosperity of Aelfwald's East Anglia, especially Gipeswic, the rising monasteries, and the development of the coinage, indicate that its substance was not dissipated in hostilities towards Mercia or suppressed by Mercian exploitation. Hence it was no doubt affiliated to Mercian superiority, but retained its dynasty at least down to Aelfwald's death (and probably right down to Edmund). I presume that if there is a connection between Beorna of East Anglia and Beornred of Mercia (identity or kinship), the last years of Aethelbald before his assassination may have been coloured by changing East Anglian policy. At that point it is hard to tell whether Beornred has represented a party hostile to Athelbald, perhaps prompting his assassination in order to seize power, or whether he may be an Athelbald partizan stepping in to try to hold off the ambition of Offa. In the latter case, it might be that the partition of East Anglia in 749 was an external policy of Aethelbald's: alternatively East Anglia may have been seized by the 'B' dynasts as a stronghold against him. Difficult to know, but it is clearly a departure from the apparent long peace of the period 713-749. If as Huntingdon or Malmesbury says (I forget which), the East Angles were with Aethelbald at the battle of Burford Bridge against Cuthred of Wessex in 752, they were his allies even after the death of Aelfwald. The most recent reference for this case being made is, I'm afraid, to me! e.g.: I hope that is helpful. Best wishes and well done for your continuing efforts, Dr Steven Plunkett 08:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * M Biddle and B Kjølbye-Biddle, 1985, 'The Repton Stone', in Anglo-Saxon England Vol 14 (1985), 233-292. (This may give pointers to other relevant publications as well.)
 * S.J. Plunkett, Suffolk in Anglo-Saxon Times (Tempus, Stroud 2005), esp. pp142-162.

Sockpuppetry and Commerce
Dear Mike, Thankyou very much indeed for that note. I seem to have extended myself in reply! Wp can be like that on certain afternoons, but I don't mind since it allows me to declare my allegiances a little without advertising them. I deeply value your courteous supervision Dr Steven Plunkett 13:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Beyond Fantasy Fiction
The article Beyond Fantasy Fiction you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Beyond Fantasy Fiction for things needed to be addressed. -- Johnny w   talk  20:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

FAC
Thanks for the help. :) I'll admit I overlooked the method in which to make a nomination - I guess I looked pretty stupid in doing so, huh?  Anywho, thanks again. ElectricTurahk 19:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

FA!



 * Thank you; mine's a gin and tonic. What'll you have?  And thanks for your own contributions, as well as your comments; it's a lot better now than when you first looked at it, and I really appreciate the help.  Mike Christie (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Great work!!! Congratulations on Æthelbald of Mercia achieving FA status. Greetings, --Victor12 17:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- and thanks for your help at GA. Mike Christie (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert and Sullivan GA review
Hello. Do you know anything about the status of the GA review? Is there a reviewer? It seems like it's been under consideration for some time, and we made substantial changes based on the comments we had received, but haven't had any new comments for awhile. If you have any info about the process, can you leave a note on the article's talk page? Thanks! Best regards, -- Ssilvers 16:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Barbiero has picked it back up again; let me know if he doesn't communicate with you but I'm pretty sure he's going to, if he hasn't already. Mike Christie (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Æthelbald
I do beg your pardon. It's a few days now since I read the whole article through, and I had forgotten that was there. I've removed it now. Don't ever worry about reverting me or changing my edits, especially when you're right. I'm in the placid category of editors. qp10qp 00:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem; thanks.


 * I'm looking at one more possible area of expansion, based on your general comments on FAC about not giving enough detail in some cases. I know you have access to Kirby, at least on Google Books.  I'm thinking about expanding the use of his argument on the top half of p.131 about South Saxon events indicating a weakening of Wessex control in the area; Kirby suggests this may indicate a "stage in the growth of the power of Aethelbald".  However, this is not a question of indicating more clearly the underlying sources; it's just Kirby's interpretation that's summarized in the article.  I'm going to think about this some more, but at the moment it doesn't seem to warrant further expansion.  If you have thoughts on this, please do let me know.  Thanks.  Mike Christie (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've rummaged around this, and I agree that there's little to add to Kirby, whose theories are certainly useful in trying to rationalise the few documents available to indicate how Aethelbald's power grew at that time. The only possible sharpenings of the information that I can think of would be to indicate that Ine was  facing internal problems before he abdicated (usually these religious abdications were less voluntary than the monkish chroniclers admitted), and that in dividing Kent between three sons, Wihtred left a weakened situation behind after his death. Presumably, a strong Mercia offered better security and filled the gap.qp10qp 00:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll think about your comments about Ine and Wihtred; if there is good material to cite, I agree that it would improve that part of the article. Giving context to Aethelbald's expansion of power can convert that part of the article from an enumeration of examples of his dominance to a real narrative, though of course we have to be careful since so much of this is interpretation.  But currently the notes on Ine and Wihtred just say they were strong, and Aethelbald dominated their successors, so I think you're right that this is an opportunity.  I'll see if I can find anything.  Mike Christie (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My RFA
(I really, really, really wanted to tell you about it in advance, but I didn't want to leave the impression I was canvassing, so I didn't. If I can do anything for you, just shout! -- Katie)
 * It would have been fine if you'd told me, but the fact that you didn't just reinforces my conviction that you have the excellent judgement it takes to be a great admin. And congrats on the unanimous count, by the way -- well-deserved.  I don't usually do things that need admin help but if I run into something I'll think of you first.  Congratulations again. Mike Christie (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike!
Hey!

I just wanted to thank you for your really nice compliment here. A lot of work goes into WP:DINO articles, and I cannot tell you how nice it is to be recognized by a comment like that (and of course, I agree with you that Project "rubberstamping" shouldn't occur). It helps when quite a few of the members are professionals in the field, but clearly there's still a lot more work to be done. I'm just spamming your talk page to say thanks; you made my day! Good luck with all of your contributions (Hey! I didn't know Ace Books was a FA!). Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester  16:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Y'all do a great job, I hear, and I'm happy you saw my comments.  Positive feedback sure helps.  Thanks for the note.  Mike Christie (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

GA nominations on hold
Hey Mike Christie! Thank you for the note on my talk page. I can't make Herpes Zoster a GA as long as I have minor problems with the article (I listed my suggestions on the talk page). I also don't want to end the nomination as those are just minor suggestions. I hope I can solve this problem in some days. NCurse work 16:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you very much for your support at RfA. I don't mind if there are some opposes, or indeed particularly if I fail, but having everyone opposed would have been quite distressing! DrKiernan 14:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you deserve support; I am disappointed in the way your RfA is going. I think there's a possibility it will attract some interest.  Hope you don't mind the attention.  Mike Christie (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Ælle of Sussex
Read through again. I’ve also looked at Æthelbald of Mercia and Óengus I of the Picts (which I saw linked in the Aethelbald FAC discussing this issue). I think I originally didn’t realise the extent of the uncertainty in anglo-saxon history, and my original comment was unfair. I'm going to note on the FAC to that effect.

That said, it’s an issue that could come up with reviewers unfamiliar with anglo-saxon history (i.e. most of us!), and I feel I ought to try to quantify my initial impression for you. I believe I can see what the original reviewer was getting at with Oengus - it's more a matter of presentation. It seems to me that Oengus tends towards presenting the sources and telling us what they say, rather than telling us how few sources there are, and how big the gaps are. Your way may well be the better one, but Oengus (to me) reads the better for it.

As an example of what I'm driving at, consider the first paragraph of Early sources, with three strikethroughs: "There are only two early sources that mention Ælle by name. The earliest is The Ecclesiastical History of the English People, a history of the English church written in 731 by Bede, an English monk. Bede mentions Ælle very briefly as one of the Anglo-Saxon kings who exercised what he calls "imperium" over "all the provinces south of the river Humber"; "imperium" is usually translated as "overlordship". Bede gives a list of seven kings who held "imperium", and Ælle is the first of them. The only other information Bede gives is that Ælle was not a Christian—Bede mentions a later king as "the first to enter the kingdom of heaven"." Now, it may well be that what I've struckthrough is an important qualification on the source, but I'm trying to demonstrate the effect.

Hope that helps in some way, and very good luck with the FA. J.W inklethorpe talk 19:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That is indeed very helpful. I think all three of those edits are improvements, and I'll go ahead make those changes.  I will have another pass at this, but evidently I suffer from blindness to this problem and anything you can do to help would be much appreciated.  I will say that the texts I have been reading are replete with disclaimers about definiteness, and perhaps I have become infected by this habit.  Anyway, I certainly don't own the article, and would be glad of the help.


 * I plan to bring some more Anglo-Saxon articles to FAC, and if you're willing, I'd be very grateful if you'd cast an eye over them and let me know what you see that can be corrected along these lines.


 * Thanks again. Mike Christie (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad it was of use. I'd be happy to help in anything you throw my way - I'm currently working on a theory that the more time I spend around good quality articles, the better I'll get at writing some of my own (It may be a bad theory, but I'm trying it anyway!) J.W inklethorpe talk 18:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

IvoShandor
Show me some diffs, and some articles he's reviewed (I didn't see them in his edit history) and I may be persuaded further. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are a couple of GA reviews: Matthew Cox and Manzanar; the latter is underway and there's a link to a subpage where he was working on the review. Actually, he's a bit overdue on that one; I'll give him a little nudge on his talk page.  Mike Christie (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen much worse. The approach of "I won't do this; you do it to my satisfaction or I'll fail your article" still grates; but that is endemic to GA. If the RFA were still open, I would consider switching to neutral. Please let me know if he stands again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ceawlin of Wessex
Unfortunately there isn't a picture. He chose a rather random selection of monarchs! I've uploaded all fourteen pictures to the Commons, and have included twelve of them in the Wikipedia articles - the two exceptions being Penda and Æthelbert of Kent, which already had images. Warofdreams talk 11:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Cnut and Emma Minster Register image
I believe that this image is of Emma, and so does the British Library. I have posted a full explanation at the talk page. By the way, you made some good solid contributions in the last several months, I'm always glad to see anyone with medieval interests. Dsmdgold 04:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, both for the help and for the compliment -- both are appreciated. I am an amateur at the Anglo-Saxon material, but I'm enjoying myself, and I'm glad to hear I'm managing a decent level of quality.  Thanks!  Mike Christie (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ælle of Sussex
Congratulations on getting this article to featured status. I look forward to seeing your future contributions and will work on the discussed addition when I have references in front of me. Warofdreams talk 02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I appreciate it, and I also appreciate the help. Mike Christie (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * May I add my congratulations? J.W inklethorpe talk 08:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Your comments made a lot of difference -- I got a lot of help on this one.  Mike Christie (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Mad props from me, as well. This was the first time I took an active role in promoting someone's FA, and it was great to see it succeed. Cheers. -- Yamara 13:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks; it was nice to have a lot of active reviewers. Mike Christie (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA
Thanks for your support in my recent, unsuccessful RfA. It's much appreciated. IvoShandor 16:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate the comment above. After yesterday, I think I just needed to be at home overnight in order to get some sense of perspective back. Thanks ever so much for your support. DrKiernan 11:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, many, many thanks. :) <- Me, now! DrKiernan 14:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

GA nom - Natascha Kampusch
Hi., i did not pay a lot of attention to the dates. I have however reviewed the article and put it on HOLD pending addressal of two comments. Once you address them, ping me and i shall be glad to close the nom. --Kalyan 05:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Death of Lana Stempien
Hi Mike. I noticed that you took the above off hold. I had planned to fail it when I found the time (I did get your message last week) to put together some stuff. I had been taking some advice from more experienced editors (including my adopter, see my talk page) and this was the consensus I was getting. I realize that this has taken a long time but the author hadn't responded to my concerns. How should I proceed in your view? I do feel strongly that the article is unlikely to pass GA I just haven't been bold and failed it outright which I should have done sooner. I do appreciate your reminders. Please advise. Regards; JohnJardine 17:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi -- I'd just go ahead and fail it in that case, and give reasons as if I had never intervened. Just because it's available for review again doesn't mean you can't be the reviewer!  I think that's the right thing to do, since you've already done a lot of work on it and if you don't fail it someone else will have to repeat your work.  Thanks for checking in; hope this helps.  Mike Christie (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Lung cancer
Thank you for the note. I just had to finish my exams, but now I found time to review it. Best, NCurse work 21:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ceawlin of Wessex
Hi Mike. I'm happy to have a look at it. The only issue is that I'm currently out of a computer at home (hard drive death, grrrr), and so I'm limited in wikitime. I'll certainly get to it, though. J.W inklethorpe talk 22:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, glad to hear it. Whenever is fine.  Hope your hard drive can be recovered.  Mike Christie (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to say, I'm still going to get to this, but the computer is dead as a dodo :( I'm stuck with lunchtimes at work. J.W inklethorpe talk 11:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It looks like my current FAC nom is going to go through, so I will probably be putting Ceawlin up for FAC next -- it passed GA without any changes; just FYI.  Sorry about your computer! Mike Christie (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)