User talk:Angusmclellan/Archive 10

This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

August 2007 to November 2007 (incomplete, plus some from December 2007)

Hi Angus, I see you have improved Flann Sinna even more ;) Good work (not that sure about the map though, to many different fonts for my taste ;) Anyway, I need a piece of advice concerning revert policies at en:wiki, various IP keep reverting me when I remove (what appears to be) nonsense from the article Inishmore, and will not respond to questions asked on the talk page. It doesn't seem many editors have this article on their watchlist, can I keep on re-reverting or should I wait for someone else to come along?Finnrind 19:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a horrible map! I'm still trying to get the hang of the graphics stuff. I've had a computer for 25 years and never figured out how to draw stuff. I've added Inishmore to my watchlist. So far as silly vandalism goes (corn chips and the like), you can revert that as often as necessary. The 3rr doesn't apply to that. If it seems that the vandalism is too frequent from anonymous users, the article can be semi-protected (anyone with an account can edit it, but anonymous users cannot). Thanks for letting me know about the problem, I'll keep an eye on it. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you're watching out, there's enough POV-pushing in Ireland-related articles, we don't need "corn-chips"-pushing on top of that :D Finnrind 12:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, I've been watching the improvements to Aldfrith (getting close to FA, looks like) and I wondered if whatever your source was for the coin images also had something usable for Egbert? I'm getting ready to do some copyedit/wikilink passes prior to taking it to FA, but I'd really like to add something about coinage during his reign, and my sources are very weak on that sort of thing. If there's anything you can point me to, or an obvious book I should check out, I'd be glad to know of it. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer -- I live close enough to the University of Texas that I might have a shot at getting to some of the more obscure references. I'll dig some more and see if I can find a survey work of some kind; thanks for the help -- Mike Christie (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Angus. Hope you are keeping well. Could you have a look at a new article I wrote? Cannot figure out why the type is so oddly displayed. Otherwise, hope you like it. Fergananim 16:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• THANK YOU! Hope to have more online soon. Fergananim 17:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had much time to devote to WP as of late, but I intended to work on Edward after Edmund the Matyr went GA. Edmund strangely turned into a series of horrible arguements and I never got around to it. I will try to join you on Edward in the next day or so. -- SECisek 04:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a rework. it needs citations for a few things but otherwise, it is near GA. -- SECisek 00:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can strike suggestions off the talk page as you correct them? -- SECisek 21:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, please do. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody named Derk is being attacked, that's who. Did you read the "article"? Corvus cornix 22:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can tell it's just an "invented in school today", or even yesterday, variant on nerdy dork. Derk isn't a name I've heard of, but I could be wrong, Arkansas is a funny place. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

at this maybe? Regards, Finn Rindahl 07:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes! Thanks, I might have missed it otherwise. I'd better get working on this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw your edit that moved Mayo to Mayo (disambiguation) and re-pointed Mayo at County Mayo citing that incoming links expect it to be that way. What's the reason for not fixing incoming links instead ? County Mayo is hardly the best default choice for the word. Thanks. Alex Pankratov 16:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a waste of time to disambiguate the links to Mayo when 95% of them refer to the county. Same for Kerry. Anyone searching for some-other-Mayo or some-other-Kerry has only one extra click to make. Looking at the list on the dab page and the links, I can't see what else the default choice could be. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have always assumed that the default choice for ambiguous words is based on a common-sense popularity, not the number of wikilinks, which can be quite superficial criteria. I for one never heard of Mayo County, and I suspect that neither did a vast majority of people outside of Ireland. However pretty much every English-speaking person is aware Mayo-nnaise. If you consider disambiguating County Mayo links a waste of time, then the obvious choice for the page would be the disambiguation list itself. Alex Pankratov 18:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mayonnaise? Disappointing but not unexpected. Try Wikipedia:Requested moves. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this is a response to what I said. Alex Pankratov 23:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your link says it's Irish, not Norse, so it really does not belong on a list of "Norse-Gael" names. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not automatically follow that Norsemen must always have Norse names, when they have lived in Dublin or Limerick or whatever. Don't you see the whole point, of Norse-GAEL? Who brought an old fashioned Irish name to Cumbria, but the Norsemen? The Normans who went to Ireland were connected to South Wales, not the North of England (e.g. Jorvik). This logically means that only one group could have brought such names as Marmaduke and Gilpatrick to Cumbria. Why is it so unfathomable? Imagine some people from England or of English heritage going into something about the Picts and saying that they know everything about it and will exclude anything that "looks funny". I'm sure that you would be up in arms over that. Now, run off and be constructive. Lord Loxley 19:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LL off on his offensive, uncomprehensible nonsense again, I fear. --Bill Reid | Talk 19:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Want to know offencive? How's it going, Kaiser? Lord Loxley 19:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angus McLellan: Could you please add the same concerns you voiced at Talk:Kayqubad III at Kayqubad I and Kayqubad II also? Thanks. Aramgar 19:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for reminding me. I meant to do it and then the phone went and I forgot all about it. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Aramgar 18:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angus McLellan: I hate to bother you about this issue again, but would you mind taking a look at the new move requests on all three Kayqubad pages? Thanks. Aramgar 02:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reminder of your GA nomination review of Clan MacAulay. It appears that you may have forgotten about this. There has been no progress since you posted your review. The article was never put on hold and it being tagged for review has put it on the GA exceptions report. If necessary changes have not been made at this point, the nomination should be failed. Regards, LaraLove 17:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My intention is to pass the article after making a few minor changes. Unfortunately, the annoying people who pay me seem to want me to work every weekend at present, and through the week too. I'll get round to it very soon. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, that must be one of the Worst. Articles. Ever. Written. On. Wikipedia. Is there a special category for such things? Otherwise it should be binned entirely. Fergananim 20:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Guess you're right. On the subject of cunning, consult Professor Fox, lately appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford at the recomendation of one E. Blackadder. Fergananim 20:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Fergananim summarizes this fairly accurately - good luck in devicing that cunning plan (afraid you're going to need it) Finn Rindahl 11:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created a stub on him, I hope you find it useful. Certainly an interesting figure. It appears he was in Paris in 1830s; however I am not sure if he was an author of that book. PS. Great Emigration has an article as well. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked up the NASA site and there was a partial eclipse in September 887 which is an exact fit for the timeline. Why are you ignoring it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.38.0.217 (talk) 11:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mate twas a bit of friendly banter between some mates, no need to get all we will not tollerate personal attacks, woosaaaaa, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluepill69 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I owe you a big thank you for supporting me in My RfA, which was successful with 67 supports and 20 opposes. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick note on Eadbald; how embarrassing. I'd been fiddling with that sentence, unable to get it just right, and evidently I left it half-done. I've made it make sense, now, at least, though I still think there's a better wording for it. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More pron. See here. Thanks for dealing with the other one. I'm not sure whether finding images like this will encourage me to continue trawling through the tagged image categories, but it has been interesting (I was trying to find historical images, and found a few). Carcharoth 00:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angus. Thanks for the the review and the comments - I've noticed more than a few quality articles you've put a lot of work into, so it means a lot coming from you. Thanks!--Celtus 07:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you undeleted one of the pictures I just deleted. If you care to rescue more, there were several similar-looking images I deleted that are probably from the same book. They're the images ending in "man" at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2007_August_14. Calliopejen1 08:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A lot of the stuff looks very dubious, but the MacIan ones are PD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :-) Could you please explain me the sentence "Only for non-standard definitions of Scottish"? I really didn't understand it. M.V.E.i. 15:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Sceat Ecgberht of York and Eadberht of Northumbria obverse.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem for removing the correct license tags I placed on the images in Category:Images from Bollywood Blog. The source (Bollywoodblog.com) does not allow their images to be used for commercial purposes. Check the source and then check the license provided on Wikipedia. The license on Wikipedia cannot be verified, there is something fishy about it and it caught my attention. You reported me to Administrators? Why? Did I do something wrong? Why did you revert my edits without first checking my claim? Seems to me like your upto to something. You should not revert other people's edits before checking their claim, it does not matter if someone comes out of no where and the first thing they do is add correct license tags--Hindu-Boar 12:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angus, I saw that you encouraged Pieter Kuiper to add "in universe" tags to articles. The problem with early Scandinavian history, as you may know, is that scholars differ widely as to what pieces of information is "fiction", "legendary" or "historical" and so I doubt that this particular tag is very relevant, or NPOV, for early Scandinavian history. I'd rather someone actually worked on the articles adding sources and content.--Berig 15:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I am concerned, however, since Pieter Kuiper has so far shown a very hard-line, and uncompromising attitude as to what is fiction or not in Scandinavian historiography. Concerning Ragnvald Ulfsson, Nordisk familjebok has very much the same content as the wikipedia article and states it as historical fact[1][2], whereas Pieter Kuiper seems to be convinced that most of it is Icelandic fiction.--Berig 16:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Nordisk familjebok is hardly up to date, but in my experience there is usually good scholarship behind it, as in the case of Ragnar Lodbrok, where it gives the same picture as you find in modern works. The most recent work I have read where Ragnvald Ulfsson is mentioned is Mats G. Larsson Götarnas riken (2002), where Ragnvald is talked of as the jarl of Västergötland as he is in Snorri Sturluson's works, which clearly shows that Snorri's information on Ragnvald is not considered to be entirely fiction, even by recent publications.--Berig 17:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Nationalencyklopedin likewise relies on Snorri (so much for Pieter Kuiper's assertions of fiction).--Berig 17:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Larsson's book is a great source. As for Pieter Kuiper's recent removal of content, Larsson says:

Och lika lite kan jag få veta ifall Stenkils far Ragnvald var identisk med västgötajarlen med samma namn, som det ofta påstås i den historiska literaturen - en hypotes som i och för sig också skulle leda till släktskap med den gamla kungaätten genom att Ragnvald enligt sagorna var kusin till Olof Skötkonung. (pp. 156-157)

My translation:

And just as little can I be informed whether Stenkil's father Ragnvald [the Old] was identical to the Västergötland Jarl by the same name [i.e. Ragnvald Ulfsson], as it is often stated in history books - a hypothesis which, as it were, would lead to kinship with the old dynasty through the fact that Ragnvald according to the sagas was the cousin of Olof Skötkonung.

Now, I strongly resent the fact that Pieter Kuiper is accusing me for OR, in his edit summaries, for something that I do not appear to have written and because of what is such a common piece of information that it should not need references (often stated in history books).--Berig 20:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I honestly have no idea, but I passed this to Hali, who has become a little more active recently (do drop him a note, I am sure he will be happy to read it and answer).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am having trouble with User Hindu Boar who is under the impression the Bollywood blog license is invalid. I and several other administrators have spoken to the director of Caledonian publishing where we have a written statement stating use for commercial purposes leasing it to wikipedia under 3.0 and therefore allowing through wikipedia the images to be leased for commerical purposes -this took some time and is verified legally on the OTRS system . It was verified by User:Riana and Videmus adminstrators who checked the agreement with Devendra ,director of Caledonian Publishing which owns all the images on that site ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, dear old Hindu-Boar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Dodgy username, no constructive edits, clearly a sock puppet: channelling Russell Grant, the stars tell me that, if he hangs around and carries on the same way, his future does not look bright. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is continuing to dispute it even though it has been verified on the OTRS system. I have asked Videmus who helped overlook it to offer his views. He is quite clearly a sock puppet as no new user to wikiepdia would begin like that!!! I don't know what the problem is. Caledonian publishing is a company -I recieved several emails from @ caledonian publishing. The company employs a large group of photographer in Mumbai which are professionals that photograph the Bollywood stars and events on a daily basis the majority of which appear in their pages. They have confirmed several times they wish to distribute them under 3.0 and would be glad to help wikipedia . ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look and see what I can suggest -- I'll comment on the article talk page, rather than here. Mike Christie (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angus, I am having the old dispute over the House of Munsö with user:Pieter Kuiper. He wants to remove stuff, while I want to keep in things that I find interesting. Please, join the discussion and give your opinion.--Berig 16:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:William the Conqueror - penny - obverse.png, 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. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me like it meets all the requirements at WP:NFCC. Note left at IFD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:William the Conqueror - penny - obverse.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Angus. Thanks and sorry. I've responded to you now. Best regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, is it just me, or do you too think it odd that the page James Stewart redirects to James Stewart (actor) (to everyone in the real world, Jimmy Stewart)? Until January it was a dab page, but then a (now banned) user moved it to James Stewart (disambiguation) and then converted James Stewart to a redirect. May that is primary usage ... I don't really know ... but no reason was apparently given, and I've personally never heard him being called anything but Jimmy Stewart, so I really doubt it. Anyways, I ain't gonna touch it just now, but if you have any thoughts do let me know. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, I've had a bit of a go at Eardwulf of Northumbria since you pointed me at it, and I'd like your take on whether it's ready for FA. I've listed a couple of remaining items on the talk page, but I think it's basically there. What do you think? (And of course you should be the one to nominate it and get the credit.) Mike Christie (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to have a go at the map -- take a look at User:Mike_Christie/Anglo-Saxon_research_resources#Maps some maps I've done and see if you like the style. I am also happy to make a copyedit pass. I'll keep an eye on the article and help when I can; I don't think we have any Northumbrian FAs, so I'd really like to make this the first. Mike Christie (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a map; see what you think. Do you think I should add mention of the Celtic kingdoms in north Wales and southern Scotland? They're not mentioned in the article. If so, what labels would you suggest?

I also slimmed down the infobox a little; looks like we can't get a picture for it, but that's OK, I think. Mike Christie (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this page? Might be worth asking him if he could let us use any of those pics. Mike Christie (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Angus! Good to hear from you. I'm much better thanks, though now on a permanent regime of pills (statins, thinners etc) and not allowed to eat or drink (or even smoke) much of the sort of stuff I used to enjoy...! Oh well, extinction is for ever, and is best avoided or at least delayed. I have been in various parts of Wikipedia (currently enjoying Latin Viki) under various disguises and keep coming upon your work - you are a very busy chap and so wide-ranging now with your duties etc. All power to your elbow (and I agree (grudgingly) there was no allied occupation of Europe). Now vis-a-vis Breedon, the trouble is that the carvings were not really described, or recognised as Anglo-Saxon even, until A W Clapham published about them. Even when Reginald Smith did his 'Examples of Anglian Art', a seminal paper for Midland art, back in Archaeologia 1924, it wasn't then recognised what the Breedon stuff was, and I don't think I have ever seen a set of Victorian pictures of them. The Clapham ref (just hunting as I write) is 1928; then pictures in Kendrick's Anglo-Saxon Art, 1938; then Rosemary's (Cramp) 1977a and b, then Richard Jewel's splendid research in Archaeologia, and what I wrote in my PhD in 1984 Chapter 1, and you know the rest. I have always planned to make a really serious effort to draw the whole series of friezes, but that's not just about to happen! None of these alas are public domain.
These are my old refs on Breedon, sorry if you've already got 'em:

• Clapham, A.W., 1928, The carved stones at Breedon-on-the-Hill, Leicestershire, and their position in the history of English art, Archaeologia LXXVII (for 1927), 219-40.
• Kendrick, T.D., 1938, Anglo-Saxon Art to AD 900 (Methuen, London).
• Cramp, R.J., 1977a, Schools of Mercian Sculpture, in A. Dornier (ed.), Mercian Studies (Leicester 1977), 191-231.
• Cramp, R.J., 1977b, Mediterranean elements in the early mediaeval sculpture of England, Union Internationale des sciences prehistoriques et protohistoriques, XIXth Congres, Colloque XXX, 264-281.
• Jewell, R.H.I., 1986, The Anglo-Saxon friezes at Breedon-on-the-Hill, Leicestershire, Archaeologia CVIII (1986), 95-115.
  

Up to 1986 these are the main published sources. I realise that this isn't exactly what you asked for but it is the best I can do really... I suppose the Clapham ones are nearly 80 years old (terrifying thought). There may be some pictures in the photo index of AS sculpture at the BM but you would have to negotiate access, and no doubt the office of the Corpus has them but perhaps not as yet for general release. So the best thing is to go and make your own. I have a few but I don't want to let go of them just yet. Hope this is of some use to you and not just a weary fellow's ramble. Very good to hear from you! best wishes, Dr Steven Plunkett 13:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking among slides but they are vastly and promiscuously heaped like oysters in a Roman ditch. If I find, will add one - needs to be of those panels with figures under arches I think, which may be from some free-standing container (e.g. poss containing Hardulf) and by later hands than the friezes. I hope the added sentences to Eardwulf are okay for you re the sculpture. I moved the sentence re feast date as I don't know the source. Also varied a sentence above (last post) as I should not have expressed imagined volition of living person in material stubbable by Google. Article looks excellent, All the best, Steven (Dr Steven Plunkett 06:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Yay, a Breighton Image!

I was going to say that the date was wrong in the license bit, but i noticed it was the same as the MetaData, so i've fixed it.

As i was confused about it being Nov 2005 - Im pretty sure that russian fighter jet thingy, hadnt been there nearly 2 years!

Reedy Boy 18:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger, obviously I didn't cut and paste that then. Right now I'm on a crusade to add a picture to every village in the East Riding. Might to the North Riding after that. Thanks for spotting the mistake. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this image meets all of the qualification points listed for a non-fair use image. I attempted to cover these points in the image description but perhaps more is needed? Any insight you can provide on how to get this image Wikipedia-qualified would be greatly appreciated.

--Ibeme 22:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angus, sorry for the late reply but I've been totally inactive for a while due to that strange phenomenon known as the "real world" :) I hope to get back to productivity in the next few weeks or so. Nice start on the Arnold article though. I've had a quick look on the web and there doesn't seen to be much information there so I'll check the library next, but I'll try to add a bit more if possible. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note -- I knew nothing about Wormald and on seeing your aside about him went and dug up a Times obituary. Very sad; sounds like he would have been a fascinating person to meet. Glad to hear your good news on the Eardwulf ref; there is very little left to do to that article now, and I'm glad you're going to add the final polish. Thanks also for the help on Wiglaf. I'm about to try to spend an hour or two working on some notes I've made from Kirby, Yorke, and Stenton, putting together the main shape of the article; any material you feel like adding would be wonderful, and of course please don't hesitate to clean up or point out any mistakes of mine.

I've been thinking about what to work on next, and haven't really got a good target yet. If there are any Anglo-Saxon royalty articles that you really think need a lot of work, let me know; I've run out of easy stubs to improve from my original list. Mercia, Wessex and Kent for preference, I think, since you and Steven Plunkett have done a pretty good job on Northumbria and East Anglia. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may be of interest to you - Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands --MacRusgail 13:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Angus. Hope all is well with you. If you have time, would you mind taking a look at some of my recent article stubs (Years in Ireland 1324-1351). Some of them don't show up when I enter them in the seach engine and I don't know why. Cheers, Fergananim —Preceding comment was added at 15:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angus, could you have a look at the article Honour of Richmond? I wonder if it is partial nonsense or complete nonsense. /Pieter Kuiper 07:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The horror! Partially nonsense, but a large part. Thanks for letting me know. I will see what I can do. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutchman is attacking ancient history. So why whine over it? What happened is clearly stated the same in the majority of sources. Some sources say that Richmond was given to Alan Fergant, but corrective historians have noted that it was Alan Rufus. This dispute is not what Kuiper brought up, but it shows my knowledge of the subject that he doesn't have, because he is prejudicely judgemental. In any case, why is 1071 so hard a year to accept? Why is the language of the charter so hard to accept? You will not find another exact date or version of the charter, so stop rabble-rousing and find something else to attack. Regiment 16:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, those issues aren't the ones being brought up. Maybe there is something to what you are saying, but he is just being pedantic without cause. Regiment 17:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might just start there, thank you. If so, I'll be sure to credit you in the initial edit summary. I'm not sure I've much more time than you do, but that hasn't stopped me in the past! Dppowell 18:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Angus, here we go. You were right about both the page reference (p.95-a passing mention only) and the date (21 August). The original source of information is from the Calendar of the Abbey of St. Mary and St. Werburgh, Co. Chester, held in the Bodleian, Tanner MS (S.C. No. 9955). At Wormald p.98 you will find the following details entered for 21 August:

"Ardulphus confessor. This is probably the saint to whom Breedon-on-the-hill Church in Leicestershire is dedicated, more usually called Hardalphus. R. Stanton op cit p. 204 suggests that he may be the holy hermit of Bredon who is found in the life of St. Modwenna of Burton-on-Trent. There is, however, no evidence to confirm this."

'R. Stanton' is Richard Stanton, who compiled the Supplement to the Menology of England and Wales (London and New York, 1892).

So, there you have it! Regards Clio the Muse 23:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, I notice you've made a "Kings of Ireland" template that you're rolling out to the articles concerned. I don't want to just edit it because it's your baby and you seem to have a plan, but what's your policy on inclusion? I'm working on expanding (where possible) and referencing the articles on the legendary High Kings, and obviously there's way too many to include them all, but most of them are little more than entries on a list anyway. But I think a handful - like Labraid, Tuathal, Conn, Cormac - have enough stories told about them to be considered notable enough as legends to include. What do you think? --Nicknack009 07:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note on photos which I did reply to. Rather good photo of Stenton you've put up. It is a strange place and photos taken from different directions really do give quite different pictures. I thought the one of Chrinside not so good because it has a huge shadow through it. Chirnside is pretty dreary anyway, although saved utterly by the church, which is splendid. Regards, David Lauder 12:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look at this page. The Scandinavian connection looks pretty fishy (I found it because it was linked from that page of new Sweden-related pages), and what appears to be a 19th century coat of arms of the Duchy of Brunswick is said to belong to somebody living before the invention of heraldry. I'm not sure if this is just really, really bad history or a complete hoax, but I suspect the latter. It links to a number of other articles, so the problem may be more widespread. Olaus 14:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zapped. Geoffroi de Brionne, son of Richard-Sans-Peur, exists, but this person who is pretending to be him seemingly does not. The related House of Candia is rubbish as well, if not quite so invented, but it survived AfD, so I won't speedy it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my photo? My photo is clearly more representative of her since you can see her face than the one there now. please explain. Christopherpeterson 21:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. black and white is a cleaner image. thanks Christopherpeterson 21:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that his bones were recovered in the 1930s and offered to the Orthodox Church of which he is asaint. After setting up some kind of shrine this petered out in interset and his bones were placed in abank deposit box in Croydon where they remain. Streona 13:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Angus, I had some comments at the Wiglaf of Mercia FAC, which is here, about the terminology. That led me to create a few suggested terminology rules. I've put them here, on a subpage of mine. If you have time, let me know what you think -- either edit them, or post a note on that talk page or on my regular talk page. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, I note that you also redirected this article to the existing Orthodox stance article. What do you think I should do about it. Its seems to be that Orthodox (boxing) is just the same article but in a poorer format. Let me know what I should be. regards--Vintagekits 21:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the coords for Ringsend, I wasn't sure what was wrong with them and I'm certain the area doesn't have a tropical climate! :-) Your comments about the regular expressions made sense to me - it was the places to look on Wikipedia that I wasn't sure of. I haven't set up any bots yet though. Autarch 19:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		My RFA
		Thanks for your support in my recent request for adminship, which was successful. I'll do my best to justify the confidence you've placed in me! Dppowell 23:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great point Angus. I hadn't thought of the King of France claim. GoodDay 15:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would just like to congratulate you on all the hard work you have put in adding images to the East Riding of Yorkshire villages. I know how many there are having added infoboxes to them all. Keith D 14:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No bother, although I don't think they all have images yet. It was a bit more work than I expected. Anyway, next up is the North Riding. That shouldn't be as big! Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are more locations in North Yorkshire but many have not got articles as yet so the number of articles will be less. I have not got a directory with appropriate details for North Yorkshire so cannot produce the basic articles or correct the existing ones like I could for the East Riding. I think every possible location in the East Riding has an article. Keith D 14:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user Mumia-w-18 persistently removes a copyvio CSD tag and a tag added by CorenSearchBot - without being an admin! He seems to want to keep this blatant copyright violation from being properly reacted upon (by speedy deletion of the article Ome Henk. Please help! 217.233.230.172 18:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like everyone else here, I am completely baffled by your actions there. I certainly don't see how it can be a copyvio. I really don't like Ome Henk, but that doesn't mean I'd want his article deleted. Well, on second thoughts, maybe I would... Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems highly likely it's made up - Candia is the Italian name for Iraklion or Crete, so it seems like an odd place name for Savoy. But it's not so wildly over the top that it's completely clear. john k 13:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hate to take credit for your work. How about if I shepherd them through FA (or try to), and we share co-nomination credit? I think RickBot can do that. The other issue is that I don't have as much on the Northumbrians as I do on the southern kingdoms. Of the references in Aldfrith, for example, I don't have Blair's World of Bede, the Farmer/Webb Age of Bede, Charles-Edwards, Fraser, Gannon, Higham, Ireland, Williams, or Yorke's Conversion of Britain.

On the other hand both articles look pretty close to finished. So how about I take a pass at them, let you know when I think they're ready, then let you take one more look in case I messed anything up. Then we can nominate them. I can do most of the work at FAC, but if anything comes up with reference to the sources I don't have I'd need you to take a look. Will that work?

Thanks for the offer, by the way. I'd love to get a couple of the Northumbrians under my belt. And if you can tell me which of the refs I don't have is really a must for the Northumbrian articles, I'll pick up one or two. Mike Christie (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on the lead, and made one more edit to clean up the question I had about Osbald. Take a quick look and let me know if you see anything else needed; if not I'll put it up at FAC later today, as a co-nomination between the two of us. Re the Vikings: is it really necessary to mention them? The raid on Lindisfarne is before Eardwulf's time, and I don't know of any significant raids during Eardwulf's reign. Is there something specific you feel needs mentioning?

Thanks also for the detailed notes on those refs -- very helpful. Mike Christie (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cited everything that I have added. I have no problem discussing any of the points on the discussion page but revert again and I'll re-open the dispute. EdChampion 00:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) The page already acknowledged that Edmund was a patron of England before I made any changes. 2) you should read why Swanton, Michael a source references in the page, uses 870 and brackets 869. What is written further down in the page regarding 869/870 is inaccurate, but I'll correct that again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.171.147 (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd found the drop down list, but did not know that there was that handy dandy page linking to the kings too... And thanks for the kind words! Ealdgyth | Talk 18:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory look through google news archives suggests that it is an incident blown out of proportion by Muslim news magazines. Merajindia (talk · contribs) was vandalizing another page, so I suspected this was a hoax, and saw the source was unreliable, and was not corroborated by any reliable source, therefore I removed the information.Bakaman 02:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I never thought of that... Torakuro 17:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have the page corrected. Can you check it out before I post it. Also, I need help moving it from my jsdietsch into wikipedia. Thank you for your patience with me!!! Jsdietsch 23:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double check that? I pulled the title of the page on his son, when I created the page (I'd been working on Hubert Walter) but the Complete Peerage doesn't make a claim on the Butler Barony. I'm utterly lost on Irish affairs, hoping you know more! I did make a redirect page from Theobald Walter, which might be a better title for the article. Ealdgyth | Talk 18:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, I've asked both of them about that problem child. Hopefully, in the next week or so I'll be going to the University of Illinois' library and will be able to dig a bit on good old Theobald, along with a number of other problem children from the whole English bishops project! Ealdgyth | Talk 19:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like, if you could, enhance my understanding as to the deletion of this article. The article was AfD'd under Notability, you effected deletion while accepting the requester's logic and further rebutting that IAR doesn't overrule in this matter, as it applies only to articles which improve Wikipedia. I understand the reason for the deletion; I disagree with it, but I understand it. I don't understand why IAR doesn't apply. I am less than educated in the fine print of Wikipedia's guidelines, but shouldn't the applicability of IAR be in the eyes of the community, and not the eyes of the administrator? There was an active discussion going on in the AfD page. No, actually, there was a vote, and appearance has it that you simply overruled it. I'd appreciate it if you could explain this to me.212.235.15.78 19:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply here.

"Wikipedia's rules are a set of common standards we use to help us build an encyclopedia. If the rules don't help with that, we ignore them." (from Wikipedia:Ignore all rules). The main rules are at Wikipedia:Five pillars. The relevant one for AfD is that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers. It incorporates elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. Wikipedia's three principal content policies are neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research."

If I was to have closed the AfD as "keep", in line with the majority opinion, I'd have been ignoring verifiability (someone else that we can rely on wrote about this first and we just repeat what they said in our articles). The fact is that nobody else reliable has written about Bash. They've mentioned it in passing ("A classic example of a snert resides permanently on the 'Top 100 Quotes' page of Bash.org"), but they haven't said anything about it.

Now Bash is pretty well known as websites go. Ex-Wikipedian BadlyDrawnJeff used to argue that if well known web stuff didn't meet our rules, then the rules were probably wrong, and maybe he had a point. There's always what WP:NOT says: "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article [or in this case, if there should be an article], ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." Perhaps if there was an encyclopedia of web phenomena, Bash.org would be in it.

Still, there isn't any such encyclopedia for us to copy, yet. And ignoring core rules just because lots of people on Wikipedia are geeky as can be - so of course they've heard of Bash.org - didn't seem like a good idea at the time. Bash.org today, somebody's garage band next week: ignoring the rules wouldn't really benefit us here. If I could have thought of something to namecheck Bash.org in, and redirect the article there, I'd have done that. But I couldn't think of anything. If you can think of something, let me know. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing up those ambiguities.

Now, it's because of what very little verifiable 'research' and such wide reknown that I would expect a reader, who first encounter s this (to us) widely known phenomenon of Bash.org to enter Wikipedia and find what they were looking for. It is because of Bash's reknown that I expect a reader to be looking for this article.

I understand the logic under Verifiability, but perhaps Notability itself is satisfied in this roundabout way?

And if not Notability, perhaps IAR would apply?

My lack of understanding regarding IAR is in whose eyes should the 'improvement' that is sought under it be considered an improvement to Wikipedia? Should this not be the community?

Just a thought. Thanks again. 212.235.15.10 20:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a great point for deletion, but the problem User:212.235.15.78 and I have is that your opinion on the matter is apparently more important than ours. Does this mean that administrators also have a judicial role, not purely a technical one? --Explodicle 21:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we're assuming that somebody who knows nothing about Bash.org bungs it into the creaky Wikipedia search engine, a redirect to somewhere that mentions it is going to help them out - we can hope - and fit with the guidelines. Wikipedia has far too few redirects compared with articles. If deep-linking into articles wasn't so unreliable, I'd add thousands and thousands myself. No ideas on where to send our hypothetical reader? I'll have a think myself, but I don't know that I'll have any bright ideas.

Regarding Explodicle's point, yes. The guidelines say I am supposed to judge consensus, so roughly what I do is:

• Read the nomination.
• Read the article, check the history.
• Figure out if anyone refuted the nomination.
• Are there good (i.e. policy-/guideline-based) reasons to keep?
• Any good reasons to delete?
• Are there lots more or better reasons to keep than delete, or vice versa?
• If the argument is based on notability/verifiability, check on Google books/scholar/news.
• Reminding myself that I merely determine consensus, which is, in turn, founded on policy and policy-based arguments, *and that my opinion of the article doesn't matter*, close the AfD.

You'd think there would be an easier way to do it, but there isn't. Counting heads is very VFD, and we don't do that any more. One person with a good argument to keep an article beats a bad nomination and a dozen "per noms", and vice versa.

The nice people at Wikipedia:Deletion review will happily review the AfD close if you want to nominate it there. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, that makes me feel better. I guess my problem is with the deletion process itself, not your application of it. Thanks! --Explodicle 03:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry to bug you again, but I re-read the policy, and it seems to indicate that "If there is no consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate." I don't think your role as an administrator qualifies you to delete an article if the discussion does not yield a consensus to do so. I'm going to put this up for deletion review and post a link here once it's up. --Explodicle 17:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I was reading about deletion review and it says I should try to resolve this with you first. Do you disagree with my interpretation of the deletion policy as quoted above? --Explodicle 17:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do disagree. "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." (Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus) As I see it, the discussion turned on the claims made in the nomination. Of these, only the claim that there were no sources to create an article which met WP:NPOV and WP:V was actually relevant, so this is the only one I took into account. Nobody seems to have addressed this claim, with which other editors agreed and even Blaxthos acknowledges that it is a sound argument. The claim seems to be substantially true. So, on strength of argument and underlying policy, the result was delete. Hope this makes sense, Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If I can find some sources which you think are valid, would that be reason enough to undelete the article? Once we have those, I'll be able to clean it up myself. --Explodicle 19:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can, no problem. That would be great. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't. :-( Sorry about all the trouble! --Explodicle 21:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there's nothing you can find today doesn't mean that something won't appear tomorrow, or next month. It's an open-ended offer, you don't need to find the stuff right now. So, if you ever do find something, just give me a yell. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've about come to the same conclusion as Explodicle. Thanks for your help. 212.235.15.78 16:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... I am curious as to whether or not you saw my "Comment" very near the end of the page regarding he deletion of the Bash.org page, signed as 82.6.124.104. I really don't see any harm at all in keeping a factual page on the popular (though, perhaps not "notable", I grant you) website. You stated "retaining an unsourced article is not improving Wikipedia" but I have to point out, in my opinion, the page is not not improving wikipedia. Heck, it may be sitting there serving no purpose at all, but as long as it is factual, relevant and a reliable source of information regarding the subject, what does it matter that it's not "notable"? - CBG 01:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I answered this already up above. Absent references, we're dependant on opinions to create an article. Difficult to square this with things like WP:NPOV and WP:V: how can anyone know it is factual, relevant, and reliable? And if Bash.org should be included because some people have heard of it, why not everything else someone heard of too? This isn't how an encyclopedia gets written. Citizendium, where experts get to write their own stuff because they are experts, works that way, but Wikiedia doesn't. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, I've relisted a request for peer review that you made about a year ago, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Cerball mac Dúnlainge, which received no comments. You may wish to watchlist the page to see if you get any further interest. DrKiernan 11:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, I think I'm going to create a general map of "Kingdoms in Great Britain c. 800" in order to answer one of Awadewit's points. I'll add the map near the top, as a general intro map; the existing map is fine and can stay where it is. I'm away from some of my refs right now; can you tell me what changes I would need to make to this map? I didn't include Bernicia and Deira on this, as they were absorbed shortly before this (I created it for Æthelbald, since it represents the state of affairs at around his birth), so I think the English kingdoms are about right. Dumnonia should be shrunk a bit. There's also this map, which generally agrees though I did mention the Hwicce in this one -- I don't think we need to do that for Eardwulf. The question I hope you can help with is what to do with the Welsh and Scottish kingdoms; are the kingdoms still as I have them in the late 7C map? If not, let me know what to do, if you have refs to hand or just know the answer. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map done; take a look. I see you're editing right now; I'll start work on Bloodzombie's notes and work from the bottom up, to avoid duplicating your work, just in case you're also working on some of the FAC issues. Mike Christie (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at Bloodzombie's comment about "killer" vs. "murderer"? I think "murderer" carries rather too much implication of a modern rule of law, and I prefer "killer". I may be straining at a gnat, though; there were laws, after all, and they included penalties for killing, and it was certainly an assassination. I guess I feel that the typical history-book attitude is that when the murderer accedes to the throne, it wasn't murder after all. Anyway, see what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, just wanted to synch up on editing Eardwulf so we don't step on each other or duplicate work. I'm preparing for a meeting right now, and will be working until some time after 4:00 UK time. I can do some of the missing refs in the background, but a couple (such as the alternative theories on Charlemagne's interest in Northumbria) I don't recognize -- I just took them from your versions A and B, assuming you knew where to cite them from. When I get back I'll cite everything I know about, and will also have a crack at the remaining comments. Can you do the one about the coins? I'm very weak in that area, though I could come up with something generic about the paucity of evidence generally and the fact that coins are one of the few "original" types of evidence we have. If you plan on doing a bunch of edits, might be a good idea to let me know when you start and finish, and I'll do the same.

It's looking good; this has been productive, and I think we're getting a great article out of it. Mike Christie (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thanks! --evrik ^(talk) 22:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and subscribed to the DNB for the next year, so if you need an article, let me know, and I'll be happy to look it up and get it to you. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Along the same lines, can you check over Gerard, Preceptor of Rouen (which, on a totally unrelated note, probably needs to be moved to some much more suitable name, but I'll leave that for another day) and make sure I haven't committed some faux pax about how to refer to the medieval bishops in what later became Scotland? I'm never sure what I should call that whole area up north of Carlisle, and it seems I always pick the WRONG phrase, so your advice is appreciated. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems fine to me! If you're looking for an expert on these things, our resident expert on the Ecclesia Scoticana is the Deacon of Pndapetzim. Looking through the books I used for Alexander I of Scotland, the only mention of Gerard is in passing. Paschal II's letter to the Scots bishops - earliest known papal letter to Scotland - gets more coverage! The only thing I can find is that Gerard may have been asked to consecrate another northern suffragan. Poaching from Nidaros again! D. E. R. Watt's "Bishops in the Isles before 1203" (Innes Review, XLV, 2, pp. 99-119) says (110-111)

(Anonymous) Bishop elect [of Man], 1103 x 1108. An unnamed bishop was presented for consecration to G(erard), archbishop of York (1106-1108) by Olaf I king of the Isles (103-1153) who describes him as 'episcopus noster'. Olaf had lived at the court of King Henry I of England 1100x1103, and presumably knew Archbishop Gerard there. It may well have been a novelty for the bishop of Man to be presented in this way to York for consecration, though the practice was established in the Norse see of Orkney and is soon also found in Skye, the other see in Olaf's kingdom; in fact it appears that he was not consecrated by the archbishop, nor his successor; this is enough to explain why he is not remembered in Manx tradition; but possibly he was never intended for the see of Man anyway, but rather for Skye, where he could be the same as Wimund.

That's all I can find on Gerard. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh! good find! I'll work it in. What's the publication dated on that? Or better yet YOU work it in, it'd go great in the section near those consecrations already mentioned. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, just checking in -- I got back online early tonight and checked back through the Eardwulf FAC to see what is left to do. Looks like you have the background section completely sorted out now; nice work. The remaining things are Dr P's paragraph on Breedon, which I left a note about on the talk page; and the rewording of the "it is argued" sentences, which I also left a note about. The latter is less important for the moment as Bloodzombie is supporting at FAC; the former is, I think, holding up Awadewit's support. Unfortunately I can't really help with either since I don't have Dr P's book with me and it's not available on Google. Can you get to this in the next week? I will be back in the US on about 11/20 and should be able to do it then, if you also don't have Dr P's book to hand.

I do have Kirby and Yorke with me, and of course the online refs, so anything I can do with those (or any copyediting tasks) just let me know. Mike Christie (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very good indeed. I made a couple of small tweaks; one was a typo, and the other was to italicize "Hardulfus Rex" -- I believe the standard is to italicize foreign languages even in quotes. If not, please reverse me. The other change was to drop your "Forsman, note 20" in note 44; it was already wrong (should have been 18 or 19) and I think is too unstable given there's no way other editors will ever keep it straight. So I made it just "Forsman"; I think that's enough. Mike Christie (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that we've yet to recognize your outstanding contributions to the series of articles on Anglo-Saxon rulers that has been coming up over the past months. Thank you very much for all of your efforts! :-) Kirill 16:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kirill, much appreciated! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which was successful with a vote of 33/7/4.

Special thanks go to Epbr123 for nominating me and Pedro for the offer of help.

I am honoured by the trust placed in me by the community. I hope to repay this by the wise use of the tools, which I intend to use gradually. Mop & bucket is on the Christmas list - honest. Keith D (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click that-a-way to open your card! → → →

Dear Angusmclellan, Thank you for your participation in my request for adminship, which ended successfully with a final tally of (52/10/1). I was impressed by the thoughtful comments on both sides, and the RFA process in general. The extra buttons do look pretty snazzy, but I'll be careful not to overuse them. If you have advice to share or need assistance with anything, feel free to drop me a message or email. Thank you and good day! Cordially, — xDanielx T/C\R 06:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Credits - This RFA thanks was inspired by Carlosguitar's RFA thanks and LaraLove's RFA thanks, which were both inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks, which was in turn inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.