User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 14

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ealdgyth. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

→

Carucage

I think Carucage is about done now. I just have a couple of issues with the Legacy section that I think could be tidied up, but as one of them may involve moving a citation I thought it best to leave them to you.

"The tax was abandoned after 1224,[10] and later revenue was collected in taxes on moveable property, not land.[35] A probable reason for the abandonment of the tax was the greater revenues gained from other taxes.[36]

Carucage was an attempt to secure new sources of revenue to supplement scutage, the fine paid by a knight or baron to avoid military service.[37][38] It was also supposed to help increase the royal revenues in the face of new demands on them. However, it came to be replaced by the taxes on moveable property that were first asssessed in 1207."

I think it would be best if the two statements about carucage being replaced by taxes on moveable property were combined.

"... manipulating the coinage" sounds like a criminal activity, although I guess what's meant is reducing the amount of precious metal in the coinage, or something like that? Could we clarify that for medieval ignoramuses like me?

While I think of it, Pipe Roll is introduced in the Under John section without any explanation. I know it's wikilinked, but maybe just a word or two explaining what it is might be in order?

Anyway, that's it. Another fine piece of work. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

On the first bit, what do you suggest as a new wording? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest something like "The tax was abandoned after 1224,and later revenue was collected in taxes on moveable property, not land, which were first introduced in 1207", in the first paragraph and drop "However, it came to be replaced by the taxes on moveable property that were first asssessed in 1207" from the second paragraph. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Reworked that a hair, see how it works for you. Did the other two bits, i just dropped the bit aobut the coinage, as explaining it would take a small essay and I'm not an expert in that area. It was a small bit of the royal revenues anyway, so it isn't nearly as big as the other bits. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me now. Good luck at FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright issues in some articles of interest to you

Hi. :) You'd asked for notice if there were copyright problems in William Booth (archbishop); it seems that there were. I've removed the paragraph that remained from the contributor in question and put the standard template of explanation at the talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you by any chance have access to Richard John King's "Handbook to the Cathedrals of England: Northern Division" (1903)? Ælfric Puttoc may contain some copyvio content...or it may contain a very close paraphrase of that PD source, which is a very different matter. When it was created, it followed very closely on [1]. The complication there is that I do not know if "edited from" means "we copied it so closely that we can't impose new copyright on it" or "it's so heavily revised that you wouldn't recognize the original and woe betide you if you copy us." If there's a chance that Britannia has some leg to claim copyright, it would be great to rephrase the remnants of that material a bit more. Otherwise, we needn't bother. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I just reworded/removed any of the possibly infringing stuff. Easier! It was duplicated or easily reworded. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll keep you posted if I find anymore, but I'm trying to rotate through the backlog there, so after today it might be a week or so before I evaluate more from that one. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Totally understandable, you do great work, but no need to burn out! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Lightning Bar

I think that Lightning Bar is about done now, except for one sentence that really bothers me and I don't have enough horsey language to sort out: "The first year Lightning Bar stood as a breeding stallion his stud fee, or the fee charged to breed a mare to him, was $250 ($1,982 as of 2010) but only nine mares were bred to him." Could we possibly say something like "... he serviced only nine mares", just for a bit of variation from "breeding", "bred" and so on? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we changed that in the PR, because "serviced" was too jargony. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I know what "serviced" means in the context of breeding, and nobody in their wildest dreams would call me a horsey person. It just reads a bit awkwardly to me as it is, but other than that I think the article's fine now. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Thomas of Marlborough

Hello! Your submission of Thomas of Marlborough at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! JulieSpaulding (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Anna Anderson

Have you survived the cold? Would you be able to get through Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anna Anderson/archive2 today? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Caught it on the first FAC, nothing seemed to have changed since then. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah :) Thanks; the eyes :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon

I like it, but per common names, shouldn't this really be at Abingdon Chronicle? Moonraker2 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Abingdon Chronicle is a section of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and in fact redirects there. The one printed edition of the work was under the Latin name. Similar to Liber Eliensis, etc. This one is a weird duck, since there is an Abingdon Chronicle also, that was different than this work. Gransden just calls it "the Abingdon work" a lot (laughs). I stuck with the name used in the printed work, figuring it's safer. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the redirect. Not sure, will read up on it. No doubt you know about this better than I do, but surely something in English (such as Chronicle of the Monastery of Abingdon) would be more in line with the convention ("the most common English-language name of the subject")? Also, should Abingdon Chronicle be a dab page? Moonraker2 (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I could not find any one set "convention" in English though. Gransden just says "Abingdon chronicle" or "Abingdon work" without giving it a true title in italics. Knowles, Monastic Order doesn't give it a title either, just chronicle. The one "title" that it does have is from Stevenson's work. If secondary works aren't using the english translation, we shouldn't either, I would think. Graves in his index separates the Chronicle which is part of the ASC from the Chronicon. Granted, I'm still researching, but it's not exactly a crisis if it stays there until something shows up that makes it clear that it needs to move. We have lots of Latin titles of works here, because most of the scholarly works on these documents use Latin titles. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The naming convention, though, is "English-language", and Stevenson doesn't have a typical or concise approach to naming things. I take your point that you haven't found a consistent English title, which is a real problem, but then it seems a consistent Latin one hasn't appeared, either? Moonraker2 (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

But whether or not Stevenson had a consistent approach across all the works he edited, doesn't change the fact that no one in the secondary works has a consistent usage, and that Stevenson is the one printed edition we have to base it on. If this is like a seriously bothersome thing to you, you're welcome to move it, but I can't see how you can justify a translated title that's not used in the secondary literature. I won't complain, but I'm not sure what the big deal is either. The only reason I even wrote the article is that it's one of a series of them written at Englis monasteries that are supporting bits for Liber Eliensis. Do whatever, I have started repeating myself here. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the Historia ecclesia abbendonensis, right? The one recently edited and translated by John Hudson? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Has it? I lost access to the Royal Historical Society bibliography with the start of the year, so I'm a bit lost on the most recent stuff. It's the Stevenson Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon from 1858, if that's the one he translated. I really don't care what the title is, just that we use something that's supportable in the secondary literature. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it is. That'd be a fine title to move it to. Google BOoks here Ealdgyth - Talk 22:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Yeah,[2] it's massive. Two volumes, and almost all of volume i is introduction. I tend to prefer the title used in the most recent edition, a good rule because that's the only title most people interested are gonna know (me being an example I guess). So it'd be Historia Ecclesia Abbendonensis or some variant ... but I guess it's not a big deal once there are dozens of links. The new edition + scholarships incidentally makes it a good candidate for FA in the longer term ... if you can get your hands on it! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I just threw it onto the pile from the U of I .. they very very stupidly gave me a courtesy card and with that comes the ability to request books, put them on hold, and store a huge wonking pile of "things to get" on their servers... so it'll get added to the list. While I have you, check out the redlinks in Liber Eliensis (all those other monastic chronicles) and let me know if there are recent translations I should be aware of? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Off the top of my head Gesta pontificum Anglorum (yes, 2 vols Oxford Medieval texts), Chronicon Monasterii de Bello (yes, Oxford Medieval Texts), Chronicon Abbatiae Rameseiensis (~~there's stuff, not sure ... this is the same as the Liber Benefactorum?~~ ... no, probably not, as recent works are still citing the 1886 version), Chronicon Angliae Petriburgense (not as far as I can see ... but I'd never heard of this). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

And it's moved. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Nashville sit-ins GA Review

Hopefully I've addressed all of your concerns with the article. Let me know if you notice anything else that could be improved. Thanks for your review! Kaldari (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

And it's passed! Great article! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for William de Blois

On January 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William de Blois, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Mets-Phillies rivalry

I just had one question here, if you wouldn't mind taking a look. Thanks! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Join a worthy project...

Wikipedia:WikiProject Magical Realism Reconsidered! Awadewit (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You know I don't do lit! I'll be glad to help with what I can, but I've got enough on my plate! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got to ask such a worthy editor! :) Awadewit (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

She didn't ask me, the bitch. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

MF, always looking to increase his block log :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm being sponsored by the Guiness Book of Records; we've all got to make a living as best we can. My talent is in being blocked by children I'd brush aside if I was ever unfortunate enough to meet them in real life. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, MF, do join in... Perhaps I could block you if you didn't? I must find some way to join the long and prestigious list of admins who have blocked Malleus. It's de rigeur these days. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Join the club; we've now both been told to f off with nothing being done about it :) Only mine was in front of half of ArbCom :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey now! Is this any way to treat your half-frozen snowed in friend? School just got canceled for tomorrow, I have a very very very happy teenager (as long as the internet connection holds out at least, not that we can go much of anywhere with it blowing the snow around... blech!) Of course, today's snowing in meant that I got two articles whipped up.. now if I could just lose the headache... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wimps. We don't cancel school here until it's 40 below. They DO stop running school busses at 20 below and excuse the farm kids, but that's only because the busses won't start. Wimpy busses! No one ever runs stories about how tough it is out here, because we aren't wimps! LOL! (TPS-ing, ducking, running and grinning!) Montanabw^(talk) 04:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh, that is some nasty weather going on over there! I can show you how to lose a headache :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Beer is already in hand, and I'm headed towards the bedroom to doze in front of the football game. (no, not THAT football, Malleus. The one we Yanks play. I won't say more violent, just more fun. - I played center and noseguard on college intermural teams... theoretically they were "flag football" and non-contact. Yeah. Right.)). Ealdgyth - Talk 03:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I played tackle football with the boys ... until it started to hurt to get hit, well, above the waist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC) P.S. Do you think we've sufficiently distracted MF from fighting with kids now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. But we can always hope. I got the ultimate compliment from one of the "coaches" for our girls team, when he saw me long-snap. He was on the actual "real" football team (and U of H at the time was actually playing decent football) and told me I long-snapped better than their players on the team. I did decide, though, that although that was flattering, I wasn't going to do the walk-on thing with the big boys. Some of those linemen are HUGE! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd much rather watch than play. And I would have enjoyed watching little you go up against a 300-pound lineman ;) Hope your internet connection stays up. We had actual patches of ice on the roads this morning and I got to wear a scarf! It's apparently the coldest weather Houston has seen in almost 14 years. Karanacs (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) After spending three weeks in 90-degree weather, I had the treat of returning home to sub-freezing temperatures (in the AFTERNOON). I'll have my triple-digit summers, thank you very much. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Twin Spica peer review

Thank you for your comments. Your review was something I was looking for to prepare the article for featured article candidacy. I have responded to your comments. Please do not hesitate to ask if you have further questions. Arsonal (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for you

I created an article on Colitis-X. Well not FOR you, precisely, (grin) but killed a few red links, including for Lightning Bar. Also found a link for Los Alamitos track and linked that also. Seriously scary condition; colitis that is, not the track. =:-O Montanabw^(talk) 20:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

...for your source check of Hotel Chevalier at the peer review. I had been anxious about the quality of the sources as the topic wasn't widely covered, so I really appreciate you checking them out. If you have any articles up for review that you'd like more eyes on I would be happy to review. Regards, Skomorokh 23:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Hope I'm not being too annoying on the FAC. It's meant constructively, but if it gets to be too much, just ignore me. It's a nice article; I enjoyed reading it. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've pretty much said my piece. If you can point out spots in the body of the article that need another or a bit more explanation that'd be great, otherwise, I think it's got a good amount of background, at least for the level of article it is. It is hard to get the right balance of enough context to explain things without getting off topic, and it's not helped by the fact that our medieval financial articles on Wikipedia... suck. Actually, most of our "general medieval" articles aren't the hottest, but they are the hardest to write, honestly. The wider the topic, the harder it is to be comprehensive. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually Ealdgyth I find literature articles the hardest to write. I've been agonising over how to finish this one off for months. Give me a good witch trial or a valve computer any day. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

See, I just don't write literature articles, unless you count something like a cartulary or a historical work. One nice thing about medieval manuscripts, they don't need "critical reception" sections! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

... or Themes, or Genre and style. I very much doubt I'll consider tackling another one. There are so many serial murderers left to do anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see a piece about medieval manuscripts with the usual structure: "Background, "Key players," "Controversy," "Critical reception," "Legacy". :D SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, most modern scholarly editions of medieval works are structured a bit like Hemming's Cartulary, with a authorship and composition section, a section on themes, and then ownership/publication. Liber Eliensis is structured a bit differently, but still has many of the same bits. But, if you were going to do an article on "Roman de la Rose", as a fictional poem, I'd expect the normal lit sections. I just won't write it. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If you still want a copy of the Kiser & Barzel article Eubulides mentioned at the FAC, I've put a copy here. Dr pda (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Horses in World War I

Hi Ealdgyth. I know that you've recently ordered several books on the history of cavalry, and was wondering if you might have any input on the current GA review of Horses in World War I. The review page is at Talk:Horses in World War I/GA1, and the reviewer is asking for quite a bit of extra information on French, German and Russian cavalry. I haven't been able to find any of the information he's asking for, and I think he's going above and beyond the "broadness" criteria required at GA. Would you be able to drop any information that you have on the article page (or the talk page if you wish and I can integrate it), and possibly be able to drop by the GA page and let me know if I'm either correct in my thoughts or completely lax in my scholarship on this article? Thanks in advance, no worries if you don't have the time/interest. Dana boomer (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suggest War Horse by Louis DiMarco (ISBN 978-1-59416-034-9) which I just picked up. Pages 309-332 cover WWI. Given our interests, the cost of it for your own library won't be wasted, I got it from Amazon for under $20. (I also got this and this (although this one was used)) I did see the review, and I do think he's expecting a bit more than is usually expected from GA level, especially from a "medium-top-level" article. A lot of the statistics, etc should be in the specific battle articles, not a top level article. But, I'm also not at all in touch with MILHIST, so it may be more is expected there. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

MILHIST don't (yet) have their own GA criteria, and until they do it would be well for them to use the same criteria as the rest of us. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec w/Malleus)I'll take a look at getting War Horse, as I've got a couple of unused gift certificates lying around from Christmas. The thing with MILHIST is that what they say has nothing to do with GA criteria, so it really shouldn't matter. It doesn't really matter, I'll do what I can and if he still fails it, then I'll just do some more searching and renom, or take it to GAR. Thanks for the quick reply. Dana boomer (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: Malleus, when MILHIST starts talking about their own GA criteria is the day I resign from the MILHIST project and stop reviewing their articles. They are a powerhouse on the wiki, but that would be going a bit overboard. Dana boomer (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

They think they're a powerhouse, not quite the same thing. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Malleus! I would add "so anal-retentive they make ME look laid back and lackadasical!" LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 05:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The Britons

Hi Ealdgyth, sorry for the intrusion. I've noticed you're something of a medievalist, and a breif discussion at Malleus's talk page revealed that Robin Hood was "way too late" for your tastes, so..........

..... not that I'm trying to entice you or pick your voluntary work for you (!)........

.... but would Britons (historical) interest you at all? It's so so bad, and I've been looking for an editor with the right skill set to tackle it. I'd pay to read a good article on the Britons. If nothing else, thought I'd just let you know about this page, as it seems to tie in with some of your passions (at a glance anyway). :) --Jza84 | Talk 01:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually much more interested in the Anglo-Norman Period. Ecclesiastical history also. I've got a BIG project to get all the medieval English bishops up to snuff, from 597 to 1300. I'm probaly about a third of the way in, with all the bishops on wiki and some of them into decent shap. Only took two and a half years. Things like the taxation article are side ventures, that actually started because I was working on Hubert Walter, who started the carucage. I got HW to FA status, and have carucage at FAC right now, so one of the things that folks wanted from the carucage FAC was information on the taxation systems of medieval England, thus the article. You need to talk to user Mike Christie or Angus or Deacon about Britons, honestly. They are much better with the "Dark Age" stuff than I am. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I hate video games...

...but not you though, don't worry. Although maybe I should. Hmmm... RB88 (T) 05:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Equine foundations

On a related note... Montana it looks like the Four Foundations theory is history. One of the books I just got says there is DNA evidence that all horses descend from the same herd. I'm trying to chase the source for that down as we speak. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The theory has gone back and forth; 50 years ago it was also a single foundation, too. Be interesting to know how recent the study is and all nuances. I'd love to see the articles or studies, either way. The other thing that to me is an open question is the issue of a landrace -- that is, a "breed" that IS domesticated, but sort of developed through benign (or not so benign) neglect, allowing natural selection to do its thing. All the feral horses are sort of examples, but so are a lot of the really hardy, geographically-adapted breeds, from the Fjords to the Arabian. I find the whole topic quite interesting, but wish there was more research on it. (I'm also waiting for the brave person willing to research DNA to determine if the Waler horse actually WAS introduced into "Straight Egyptian" Arabians during and after WWI. That and if the Barb is descended from the Arabian, or if the Muniqi strain really does trace to the Akhal-Teke, and of course, who is the "older" strain, the Akhal-Teke or the Arabian. Enquiring minds want to know! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 01:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VIII

Hi Ealdgyth. Can you do a source check on this. Most of the other stuff seems to be in order now YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk to the man in the section above. (At least I've assumed it's a male editor.) He's taken over pop culture/games at FAC... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation formatting feedback

... here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Help needed, ASAP

Una's back, and attacking the only substantive new article I have created since last year's sockpuppet debacle. Help. Colitis-X, Talk:Colitis-X and Sabotaging my DYK nom of same. I've alerted an admin, but I need some level heads over there before I blow my cork. I have no problems with people who know what they are doing going in and improving the article, but this is Una, who I do not trust, who has been in past trouble for OR in medical articles, and with whom I have an extensive history. This is why I'm not creating new articles and reluctant to take the lead bringing anything I care about to GA or FA. I don't want to be paranoid, but she's ALWAYS there whenever I do something actually useful or creative. Help! Help! Montanabw^(talk) 02:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Lar and Hamiltonstone are on the case, they are both level headed editors unconnected with horse articles, so that'd be best, I think. Let them handle it, it's under control. If you need another medico type person, ask on SandyGeorgia's page, they can help with medical type stuff. (I'm really no good with medical stuff, that's why the article was a redlink) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And a further bit of advice. Just because Una shows up doesn't mean bad things are going to happen. Nor, is it good to assume that. If things degenerate, folks will notice, it's not necessary to expect that it will. Yes, it probably would be best if Una avoided you like you should be avoiding Una, but it's not required that that happen. You did right to notify Lar, and now you should step back, and let things calm down. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, others are on it. But, the situation speaks for itself. I avoid Una, she is the one who dove headfirst into an article that I created, one of the first if not the only substantive article I have created since my last go around with her. It is just too quick to be a pure coincidence, I'm sorry, but just because one is paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you! (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 04:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Roger Gale (antiquary)

On January 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Roger Gale (antiquary), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor note on different new article

About a month ago, someone created Magnum Psyche. Dana tagged it, but it wasn't properly categorized. I did a really quick review on it and a bit of cleanup (deleted the leap tall buildings in a single bound stuff) but didn't do much to expand it. The horse and his handler are so highly controversial that I felt it best to just keep the article small and discreet for now. Montanabw^(talk) 03:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Source review

Hey! Would you have time to look over Wikipedia:Featured article review/Music of Minnesota/archive1, particularly Tony's question at the bottom? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Justus

I thought an image of Justus would be appropiate on his article. I'm not going to revert you, but I find your reasons odd at best. The image is not that bad at all, and you can read perfectly well the inscription that says "Justus". Anyway, I wanted to say I really liked the article. I've translated it for the Spanish Wikipedia. Cheers Raystorm (¿Sí?) 17:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The statue is from the 19th century though, it doesn't even begin to be anything but a guess as to what a man from the 7th century would have looked like. Nor is the attire at all anything but a guess. We're better off showing off something that gives the flavour of the time, a manuscript that he probably held, than a statue that doesn't really have any connection with him. If it was a shrine or a tomb, that might be diffrerent. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't we show both? After all, the statue is from Rochester Cathedral (where he was a bishop, that should provide flavour, right?). Btw, what do you think about this image for Mellitus? Raystorm (¿Sí?) 17:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

BOth of those images have been in the articles before, but I'm not really in favor of them, nor were the FAC reviewers. We're honestly better NOT giving the impression that Mellitus and Justus looked like that. It's like all the images of Jesus that show him with blonde hair and blue eyes, when he was unlikely to have had either, it gives the wrong impression. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Bede; Wulfred; Pinto; Bertwald; Aelfsige; Norman dynasty; Bishop of Winchester; Athelm; Sceptre; Ceolnoth; Bungay Castle; Dungeon; Feologild; White Ship; Cilician Gates; Constantine I; Nothelm; Mary; Wulfhelm

Cleanup: Henry the Young King; Edward V of England; Hereward the Wake
Merge: Publish/subscribe; Magna Graecia; Gothic Revival architecture
Add Sources: Standardbred horse; Henry Deane; 1217
Wikify: European School, Culham; Monophyly; Culture of Europe
Expand: Edmund I of England; First Barons' War; House of Stuart

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Scrupulosity

Ealdgyth, if/when you have time, would you be able to comment on some of the publishers listed here? I seem to recall seeing some of them in the Catholic Church FACs, and think they might be religious presses. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk)

That was fast! Thank you, always, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't watchlist, by the way. Not my field of interest. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What, you got no scruples ? :) Sheesh, I'm well into the 30s at FAC and nothing is promotable or archivable. My eyes hurt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I did my usual, put up something I thought would sail through, but this time, I hit a few rocks. Lots of comments, no supports (gaze up). Ah, well... eventually. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Taxation in medieval England

On January 16, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Taxation in medieval England, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

BUS M-28 FAC

I aware of the one source you flagged as deadlinked in your source review. It seems that the website was redesigned since the time I added that source to the article, but I found the URL to the updated version of the page. The source is updated if you'd like to comment again. Imzadi1979 (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Basset (royal justice)

On January 17, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Basset (royal justice), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Brumby alt text for GA

Ealdgyth, Casliber is currently reviewing Brumby for GA, with Cgoodwin as the lead editor, and me sort of helping out when Cg isn't around. In this case, we're almost there, but Cas asked us to do alt text on the images, and as I haven't done it much, would you take a peek at what I did and tweak it if need be? This will be Cg's first GA as a lead editor, and I just hope all goes smoothly! Montanabw^(talk) 04:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hugh of Wells

On January 17, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hugh of Wells, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Like a Rolling Stone

Ealdgyth, thanks for your helpful comments on Wikipedia:Peer review/Like a Rolling Stone/archive2. I've replied to your query: What makes Bjorner website a WP:RS? on that page: [[3]] Mick gold (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you from me, too! Your comments were very helpful. Moisejp (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding which language links are in

I changed this to "consider doing it," rather than "do it." [4] We'll see if it holds. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

William Stanley GA1

Hi, I don't know if you've got the time to look at William Stanley (Victorian inventor)? I've dealt with the main problems you noted at Talk:William Stanley (Victorian inventor)/GA1, so I'd appreciate it if you could have another look at it when you get a chance. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It is looking a lot better, I'll have some time later this week to do a full review, but you're close. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - I'll await that with bated breath! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thought you'd been found

When I saw this earlier I thought you'd been found at last. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey - I came here to post the same news [5]. Glad they finally found you : ) NancyHeise ^talk 01:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

EaLdgyth. (sniffles). That's how I spell it, at least. (It's one of the accepted spellings...) I'm about dug out from a huge project that dumped on my lap, so I should be back editing by the weekend.Ealdgyth - Talk 02:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Now you're going to have to FA yourself: "She was a beautiful English princess who married one of Europe's most powerful monarchs and dazzled subjects with her charity and charm." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Jay Pritzker Pavilion question

Hi Ealdgyth, thanks for your refs and sources review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jay Pritzker Pavilion/archive1. Just wanted to let you know that I removed the ref that you were not sure about, which was the only outstanding issue, I believe. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

I have addressed all your referencing concerns at for the 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas of Marlborough

On January 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas of Marlborough, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 06:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Carucage

Apologies. I'll make smaller edits, and be more careful. ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your ping. I normally unwatch a review article after its alt text is in good shape, and unwatched that review page even though I now see I should have continued to watch it, as I made some comments that were not alt text related. I'll follow up on Talk:Carucage. Eubulides (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

MSM FAC

Thank you for your comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marriott School of Management/archive2. I have tried to address your concerns and would invite your further participation in this FAC. Cheers! —Eustress ^talk 00:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Anglicans

[6] - not according to them of course. "In the days when the Church of England was in union with Rome, .... " I have just been reading here! Did you know King Alfred was a saint? I didn't. Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis

On January 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 06:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

In regards to GAN, the Chancery et al

I've seen your work on historical events, people and the like from afar, and always been very impressed; it's one of those things where I decide to thank someone, and then forget, and then see it again and decide to thank them, and so on. Something I've been working on (and got to GA) is the Statute of Uses; I figure it'd be a good target for a collaboration, if you're up for it. I've exhausted my sources, but if you've got books or journals covering that period of time it may be possible to get it to FA. What do you say?

Oh, and on another note, I have a few pesky GACs if you feel like helping out with those :P. Ironholds (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. just saw this; is the modern position of High Sheriff the same sort of role? Because User:Choess and I have ensured that we have articles for most of them, so there may be some correctable redlinks there. Ironholds (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

On the sheriff's .. I honestly don't know. It's probably worth someone looking into it, to see if they trace. I think some of the lists of high sheriffs include the early medieval sheriffs, but whether that's strictly speaking correct or not, I don't know. Im a Yank, so anything past the Plantagenet's administration, I get lost in. I'll dig on "uses" once I figure out what the HECK it is... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

How far back are you wanting to go? Strictly speaking, land could pass through a will, if it was urban property. It was only if the land was held by feudal tenure that it could not be willed.(Ralph V. Turner The King and His Courts p. 198). This is from Henry III's reign. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

another bit: "The inheritance laws governing personal property were fairly well defined by Edward I's reign. Real porperty was excluded from testaments or wills for feudal reasons, but personal property was not. For its dispostiong the church had alsways encouraged the making of a will." (Bryce Lyon A Constititional and Legal History of Medieval England Second Editon. p. 464-465) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Anything you could contribute would be awesome; time is irrelevant (unless it was after the SoU, of course :P). Ironholds (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Another GAN

Hi Ealdgyth, if you have time (ha!), would you like to review Usama ibn Munqidh? It's been on GAN for awhile but no one has said anything yet. It's medieval, so there's that, but from the Islamic side, so maybe that's why no one wants to review it... Adam Bishop (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Jay Pritzker Pavilion

Thanks again for your helpful peer review and source checking at FAC. Jay Pritzker Pavilion is now a featured article!
TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) and Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Source check request

Hi Ealdgyth! I've been taking a look at the FAR for Music of Minnesota, which can be located here, and I was wondering if you could take a look at the sources? I have already questioned a few, but there are others that I'm not sure on - including IMDB and Amazon. Also, I'm not sure if I am correct in my questioning the YouTube source used in the article. If you have time to look over the sourcing, it would be great, if not, that's fine too :) Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm blushing

Thanks for kind but unmerited comments. Unfortunately I'm off on my hols soon, so I'll be winding down while I pack for warmer climes. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In a meddling sort of a mood

I came to thank you for leaving nice notes for reviewers last month (you were all over my watchlist!), and noticed that your talk page formatting seemed kinda borked. The PR and FAC/FAR templates were squashed, the ArbCom template scrolled off the page, and the TOC was completely offscreen to the right. I tried to relocate your templates and TOC in such a way that everything should fit on the page while still being readable. If you hate it (change IS scary), just revert my previous edit. Thanks for running those statistics on FAC last quarter, and thanking reviewers! Maralia (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am going to revert, because it's set up to fit nicely on my wide 30" screen. I realize it might be squished for smaller screens, but since I'm the primary user of those boxes at the top....Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a 1200px screen at work and a 800 px screen at home and Ealdgyth's TOC is always off the screen to the right. Could it be the reason why I don't leave more messages here because I can't follow it, or just that you don't talk about naked people or ABBA or some other thing that catches my attention? I don't know... --Moni3 (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Knowing you, Moni, it's the lack of ABBA or naked people conversations (maybe the lack of naked ABBA conversations? EEEWWW... that's a horrid image...) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You have developed a new form of fan fiction! I'll spread the name as Ealdspeak. Nekkid "Waterloo". --Moni3 (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just bored because I'm trying to get into Star Trek Online on its first day up for the headstart... and having no luck. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It was because of this talk page that I finally figured out there was a "new section" button. I got tired of scrolling to the right and thought I'd look around for an easier way. I wonder how long that "new section" tab had been there before I noticed it.... Karanacs (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course it needs to work for you most of all! But is it possible to fix the TOC in some way that you can live with? It's completely offscreen to the right (i.e. invisible to anyone who doesn't notice the scroll bar), and so squished that each entry line-breaks after only two words. I'm at 1280x1024 on a 17" monitor. Maralia (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That help? I took out the PR listing Ealdgyth - Talk 19:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Just needed a row break in the table containing the TOC. Sorry for the ruckus :) Maralia (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not like the TOC on a separate line, so took out the adminship stuff. If it's still too big, I'm going to have to say "tough", because I prefer it this way. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for getting the TOC onto the page! Friends have been hyping STO to me, but I can't seem to get excited about a futuristic RPG (even though I'm an utter fool for an MMO, and I may or may not have gone to a Star Trek convention a good decade before most Wikipedia editors were even born). I hope you get in! Maralia (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Finally in. We did the open beta, and liked it enough to do the lifetime. I've loved having the lifetime for Lord of the Rings Online, and we've been looking for a decent Sci-fi MMO to go with the fantasy ones we play.... I think I've tried more than half the MMOs that have been released at one point or another. Heck, I still play a text-based MUD! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ohhh, which MUD, if you don't mind saying? I finally broke myself of my MUD habit about 6 years ago, only to take up WoW for the next 2.5. Since then I've just dabbled in console games, with nothing really holding my interest for more than a few months. Maralia (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Dragonrealms Been playing since 1997. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I play Guitar Hero on hard. Otherwise, I cannot relate to this conversation and my words here are simply taking up valuable bandwidth. --Moni3 (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Smedley Butler

I just wanted to say thanks for the reviews and comments on the Smedley Butler article. I added quite a bit of content and will be adding more throughout the weekend. It looks like Sandy georgia closed the FAC though so I will have to resubmit it in the future. Once I add some content and clean it up a bit I will resubmit it. Probably in a couple weeks. Thanks again.--Kumioko (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

What a wonderful surprise to see that barnstar! Thanks so much! Awadewit (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well! Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a new record

Of articles you've put on my talk page in a single post. Fun fun fun. In other news, I've decided to become, not just active, but overzealously active, as it seems to be en vogue these days. RB88 (T) 14:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Now, now, those were three different times I posted! And every time I ended up doing more than I put up on your page... but seriously, thank you. I think I'd go insane if I had to do all the FACs right now.. yikes! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Lady Godiva

I've just been looking through Ann Williams's ODNB entry for Lady Godiva. Do you believe that to be generally accurate, and a good starting point? I'm not sure what materials I'll be able to get hold of, haven't checked yet. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's substaniallly correct. Deacon'll want us to say WHY those charters are genuine or spurious, but I can try and hunt those down. We're going to need a lot more on the "legend" than Williams gives, but that's not unusual with the ODNB. There's probably more tidbits that can be used to expand a bit, as well as some background to the historiography also, explain a bit more on why Freeman related that her family became a "spoil" for pedigree nuts. Might give a bit on information that's been debunked also. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. I see you made it with carucage. Well done for sticking with it. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm compiling Jan stats for FAC right now, but within the next few days I'll start on the naked lady. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Liudhard medalet

Done. Will you DYK it - there's an obvious hook? I can nom if you like. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Already up, but if you have a better hook than what I put up, feel free to put it with it. Under January 30 expansions. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

...but I'm trying to lose weight before my hols. medieval bishop and horse is the best I can offer in return Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

	Thank you, your contributions at Featured Article Candidates and Peer Review during the month of January 2010 are greatly appreciated. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Chocolates

Thank you, Ealdgyth, that's much appreciated, and the picture has made my mouth (literally) water. I may have to head off and buy some chocolate now! :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Blame Malleus, he is on the Godiva kick and well, it was pretty obvious. Weirdly, I don't really like chocolate myself... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, much thanks. I'm just glad to help. ceranthor 02:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Bugger the chocolates, Lady Godiva makes my mouth water. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahaha, I think that one earns Malleus another round of chocolate. And a poster from his teenage fan club featuring Lady Godiva herself. ceranthor 02:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

And I have to follow that commentary ? Thank you so much for the chocolates, Ealdgyth; it's been a long two weeks, and chocolate soothes the soul. Did you give yourself some? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

She doesn't much like chocolate, and curiously neither do I, unless it's the very bitter sort. Lady Godiva on the other hand ... --Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Err... Malleus? You realize that Godgifu would have probably had few or no teeth, not bathed very much and been kinda short and perhaps louse-ridden? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he does. ;) Hahaha. ceranthor 02:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm just going by this. She looks pretty foxy to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the box of chocolates! If I had a picture of a bishop or a horse, I'd give you one back for all you do. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the chocolates! I bet Lady Godiva had fun riding on that horse. Awadewit (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Any chocolates left unclaimed, I'll be glad to clean up the leftovers! And Godiva chocolates, Ummm, yum! And Malleus: DOWN BOY! DOWN! Montanabw^(talk) 03:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm always in the mood for chocolate. Thanks again! Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice note and the chocolates! --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that was for reviewing I presume? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was. I'm thinking a collectable series of "banners" one for each month if you review a lot. You know ... "gotta catch 'em all!" or something like that... Maybe next month Lady Godiva for Malleus.. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your help and comments!

It's a process, and I am learning. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The Green Child – thanks

Thanks very much for taking a look and for your suggestions. This has been without doubt the hardest thing I've ever written on wikipedia; I'm obviously just not cut out for the literary life. I don't think I'll ever be brave enough to take this to FAC, but I'm going to try and screw up enough Dutch courage to have a go at GAN. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, after half a bottle of red wine I thought "bugger it", and I've nominated at FAC. What's the worst that can happen? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You get asked for more "background"? LOL. Good for you! I personally, always go GA then PR then FAC, but then again, my writing is ... verbose! I need someone to cull it back. Today's project was George Wilkes, an obscure little guy who probably would have appealed to you. Yesterday's was Liudhard medalet, talk about your contrasts! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Washington Park Race Track

I don't know if you are watching this page, but your expertise is needed to properly evaluate a recent addition and source it if it is encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Is that a hint?

Or are you just trying to sweeten me (and fatten me)? I'll wait till the end of the month to return the favour. In the meantime, more (overzealous) comments. RB88 (T) 15:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Lightning Bar

This is such a trivial suggestion that i didn't want to clutter FAC with it. You have a pedigree of the horse - near the bottom, in one box you have "mare" and in another "unknown" - in both cases you appear to mean a mare of unknown identity, so i would use the same terminology in both boxes. Also, maybe it is just my browser, but the names of Lightning Bar, Three Bars and Della P are all cut off by the bottoms of the boxes - the names of all other horses appear just fine. OK, I'm done with trivial feedback! Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't do much with the boxes being cut off, it's a template I'm using for that... the difference between the two are ... hte mare is a mare that was never named, but her sire is known. The unknown means we know nothing about her. it's a pedigree convention, similar to what you'd see in a human pedigree if it said "unknown daughter of so-and-so". In ohter words, no it's not the same terminology, because we know something about the "mare" entry (her sire) but we don't know anything about the "unknown" entry. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Liudhard

Thankyou. 216.8.174.225 (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

you're welcome. Sorry your perfectly valid contribution got reverted twice. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What fun!

I see we're both at FAC at the same time. Tell you what, you support mine and I'll support yours. Whaddya say? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I wouldn't know HOW to support a lit article, honestly! it's a nice article, but I'd feel a bit out of my depth there. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Join the club. That has been the hardest thing I've ever done on wikipedia. There was so much I just didn't understand. Probably still is. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And people say science is hard. :) Awadewit (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure an expert could have done a far better job than I've been able to do, but it's there now for them to improve, which it wasn't before. I learned so much from writing that article it's untrue, and that's surely what wikipedia is about, learning. I'm in a mind now to tackle an Ealdgyth-style medieval article on the green children of Woolpit, which is a bit more down my usual whacky street. But I'm also encouraged to maybe chance my arm again at another literary article. So all good really. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're interested in combining the two, think about Troilus and Criseyde. I have it on my back burner and all of the major sources laid out in the bibliography, but I haven't had time to do all of the reading required. Awadewit (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That looks quite challenging, but worth a shot. I had half an eye on Tam O'Shanter, a man somewhat similar in certain respects to myself. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Alexander of Lincoln

I've taken another look at Alexander and am generally happy with your alterations or explanations. Just a couple of comments:-

"Alexander does not appear to have entered the king's household or administrative organs..." The thought of entering the king's administrative organs is a bit too graphic for me. I know I questioned the original wording, but it may be safer to go back to "household or adminstration".
On the cutting back of info in the Reign of Stephen section, I somehow doubt whether quoting me will make 'em all say "That settles it, then". Best do what you feel you can best defend. I won't raise it at FAC if you don't cut it.

Regards, Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll stick with the section on background as it exists. It's a very ... complicated... period in English history, and more explanation is better than too little, I think. Also, our articles on it... suck. Yeah, I know, I should write them better but... gees, I only have so much time! I'll cogitate on the "organs" for a bit and see if I can't think of another method of wording it... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thomas of Bayeux

I'm always a bit nervous at FAC, but fingers crossed the back's broken of The Green Child and your Lightning Bar looks set to be OK as well. So, Thomas of Bayeux next? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think he's about as ready as he'll get. I have one more article I need to check, but it'll be tomorrow before I can get to it. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Let me know when he's ready to roll. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Magazine reliability

Hi Ealdgyth, a quick question on the reliability of a British horse magazine that I've never heard of... The mag is called NagMag, and the main website can be found here. The article in particular that I'm looking at is one on the Marwari horse, which can be found here. The article itself is written by Mark Eveleigh, who appears to be a notable photojournalist who specializes in animals and weird places and has written several books and been published several times the Royal Geographical Society magazine, see here. I'd love to use a few bits and pieces from this article in the Marwari entry, which I'm trying slowly to get to FAC status, but I don't want to add it in if it's just going to be challenged (probably by you!) as soon as I put it up on the nominations page :) Thanks in advance! Dana boomer (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, they are print, so that's a plus. How long have they been around? It's probably okay for non-contentious non-BLP information. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how long they've been around. I can't find much on the web about them, which is the main reason I was hesitant to use the info. At least late 2007 (that's when I can find archived articles back to), but it could be longer. 3 years isn't really that long, though. Dana boomer (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it is a regional publication. Doesn't mean it's not OK, but may be right up there with the Montana Horseman's Journal, a now-defunct newsprint magazine where I was published prior to my wikipedia days! (LOL) Maybe drop a line to Richard New Forest and see if he has heard of it, he's on the ground. For a sense of general quality, tou may want to read their article in the current magazine on the Lipizzan. Their early history stuff is pretty poor, based on what we have researched (plus lots of typos) but the more recent material is fascinating, though if true we could have WWU mad as all of us again... LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 07:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Any suggestions?

I'm thinking it's only fair that I put some kind of a warning notice on my talk page so that anyone who asks me to take a look at their article knows what to expect. I've hacked away at a few of yours, so any suggestions? I've thought about "if you don't want to know what I think about your article then don't ask me for my opinion on it, because if you do then sure as Hell I'll tell you, and it may not always be pretty." I think that strikes the right note. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Walschaerts valve gear Ning-ning (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

Thank you

Hi Ealdgyth. Thanks for taking the time to review the refs, links etc. for the Takalik Abaj FA nom. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Liudhard medalet

On February 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Liudhard medalet, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thomas of Bayeux (Part 2)

I'll try and blast through as quickly as I can, and leave some comments on the talk page. My blood is boiling and, I'm quite certain I'll be blocked again fairly soon. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Just remember, some folks aren't worth even getting your blood pressure slightly elevated about. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm just about at breaking point Ealdgyth. As Captain Oates said, I may be gone some time. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Who was it that was telling me not to quit in the middle of the Carucage FAC? By all means, step back and take a break, but no matter how obnoxious and prattish some of the folks are here, it's not worth descending to their level. Go have a Guiness (or whatever you prefer... I'm sure a good single-malt wouldn't be bad either). I'm off to drown my SO's sorrows in some ale because he's a Colts' fan...

Good point. Anyway, I'm done with Thomas now; dumb questions on the talk page, as usual. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant

Hello, you took out my contribution there is a doubt about two different places Thierville and Tierceville. There are not the same.

You can't write on one hand "around Thierville" and two lines further "Thierceville". The place he was born is called Tierricivilla in a medieval document and it can't be Thierceville a place in Eure too. For 3 reasons : First, it is too far away, near the Ile-de-France boarder and second, it is known in the past as Tygiervilla (1240 for example). Third, the abbey of Bec owned lands in Thierville, not in Thierceville. No doubt for me that he was born near Thierville (Tierrici villa > Tierrevilla, 1180).

The doubt is about another another place called Tierceville, near Caen, also called Tigiervilla (for example in 1180) where Gilbert Becket, Thomas Becket 's father probably came from. He logically married Matilda from Mondeville, another place near Caen. I don't think there is any kind of connection between Theobald's birth place and Gilbert Becket's birth place. It is just a confusion of place-names Best regards Nortmannus (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The main issue was that was entirely unsourced, and the bit about Becket and Theobald being related IS sourced. If you can source the above, fine, but as it was it wasn't sourced before. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sir James Shaw, 1st Baronet

That was damned quick of you! Thanks very much. Rodhull andemu 21:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries at all. Like I said, the main issue was the two sources, the others were just fluff. If you'd chosen to not take them, it wouldn't have affected the GA status. I do, however, not suggest taking it to FAC without some major expansion! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Book of Fees

Hi Ealdgyth. I recently had to get this baby off my chest, which incidentally, offers some information on carucage. It's a little outside my usual field of interest, or so at least is the period, but even so, I was surprised to find how much I had to struggle to discover more recent sources that have anything useful to say about the book itself. It is regularly cited alright, but as far as I can tell, few recent scholars appear to have commented on the nature or purpose of the compilation. To judge a book by its cover, War, politics and finance under Edward I by Prestwich looks faintly promising, but do you think you could provide any further pointers? Feel free that add anything to the article if you like. Please don't feel obliged though and there is no rush involved. Cavila (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hugh of Wells

Hey there! I've finished the GA review of this article; other than the points I've made, sterling stuff. I'll get on to the other two you've nominated as soon as I've finished a few more. You get the offer I extended to Malleus, btw; notify me when you've nominated something, and I'll review it. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thankee! Hopefully I can get to them this afternoon, but it might be tomorrow. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Afternoon? It's night here in God's own country; cold, and Bible black. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, almost 2 in the afternoon here. And cold and blowing snow. Could have blizzard conditions tonight, lovely. I wouldnt' call my area of the US "god's own country" that's for sure. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I would, but I think we'd have different ideas as to which god :P. That's fine, I've watchlisted the review so I can respond when you do. Nice to see someone else who uses "thankee", on an unrelated note. Ironholds (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've passed Hugh's article; congrats! I'll get started on the other two later this evening. Ironholds (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

24 Waterfall salute!

<>°° 21:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)">

Thanks for all your checking sources. Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park made Featured Article today! Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

God help you if you ruin the pristine quality of my talk page in the near future...

Look how shiny and clean it is now. Boo to archiving I say, for people with bad memories and nostalgia. I'll be waiting with bated breath when it is ruined by a long blue-linked list again. RB88 (T) 12:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

RFA?

I feel we need more article writers in RFA, and I'm wondering if you are interested as one? You are one of Wikipedia's best and most respected article writers, and the tools could be useful on some spots. Thanks Secret ^account 18:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty please with cherries on top? Karanacs (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Jedi mind trick* You want to run for adminship... besides, I'm sure Sandy can cook up a sweet nom, you're a safe bet not to ruin her record :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You're not an admin? *boggle* --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not. And I'm not sure why I'd want to be... near as I can tell, most admins quit writing. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, all my FAs came after I became an admin. Running for ArbCom, now there's a bad move for your writing career. And any number of other things. Steve Smith (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, duh! Just because I voted for you, doesn't mean I don't know I was throwing you to the wolves... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well damn your hide, then. On that note, I think Social Credit Board's ready for another look, at your convenience. Steve Smith (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You're the one who ran! On Social Credit, I'll check in the morning. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

More seriously, the tools are quite useful for dispatching vandals who target articles you've watchlisted and for cleaning up page move mischief. Viewing deleted revisions - or even deleting your own pages when you're done - is also occasionally useful. You don't have to use the tools much, if ever, but you may be surprised how often they'll come in handy. Karanacs (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(pulls her own jedi mind trick, known as "real life work and hay guy delivering hay" to ignore the whole thread) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

God knows I don't use the tools often. Still feel like a bull in a china shop. --Moni3 (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

<tap, tap, tap> (Freezin' down here!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Tap tap, listen to Karanacs Secret ^account 21:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Listen to Sandy and Karanacs... You know you wanna... ;-) Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd definitely vote for you. ...you know you want to.. ;) Connormah (talk | contribs) 05:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for John Joscelyn

On February 13, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Joscelyn, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for George Wilkes

On February 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George Wilkes, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Illinois Route 22 GAN2

Just letting you know about the corrections I made to the article as per your GA suggestions. RoadView (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ping - ready to resume review

It's probably not perfect, but the Gray Mouse Lemur article has been revised and the FAC review is ready to resume. And if you're up for a GAC review, I'd love to move the new article Illegal logging in Madagascar along, too. If not, don't sweat it. Thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 00:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy Commercial Love Day?

No respite round these parts, is there? I'll try and get to some tomorrow, but currently packing and will be away in midweek. So, it might be till the end of the week before I can have a complete look. RB88 (T) 02:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Photography poll

Hi Ealdgyth. Now that I know you're a pro photographer, I had to ask you to look at these ones of cricketers I made and put on my talk page, firstly because I need people to help me work out which ones are the least horrible, and secondly because I could do with some tips so I don't make the same mistakes over and over. Also, it might give you a good laugh. Thanks YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 06:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Bronwyn Bancroft

Hi there - i just raised a query at the FAC about your concerns on sources, but have just found a new source that may resolve one of the two issues. If you could hold fire for a few hours, i'll update and try and sort out one of your two concerns. Thanks, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, done, if you'd be willing to pop back in and clarify, i'd be very grateful. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

GAN schtuff

As you've spotted, I did a spot of reviewing this afternoon. As a personal "thanks!" for your historical work, you should find all four of your GANs with a review waiting :). Ironholds (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've caught up except for the medalet, which will wait until I get back from some errands I need to run. Thanks so much for the reviews! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Aaand they're all passed :). Congratulations on your fifty-four odd GAs! As previously mentioned, my standard offer is open (much better than Durova's :P); if you have an article that needs reviewing, give me a shout and I'll do it ASAP. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, they're mostly about archbishops that nobody else has ever heard of, or horses, but I think it's a bit much to call them "odd". ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually counted today... 60 GAs...wow. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty good going. I've only got 11. :-( --Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Noronha skink

Regarding your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noronha skink/archive1, I can see your point and am sorry that it cost you unnecessary time. But I just checked, and around 90% of the sources for the article that I have as PDFs don't italicize journal titles either. I don't have a problem separating pieces of those citations, probably because I'm used to those journals. I'm afraid that's not of much use to you, though.

But now I'm here anyway, I'd as well thank you for all the great work you're doing on FAC and elsewhere. And I second that question by Secret above—every good editor should be an admin. Ucucha 00:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, why the discrimination against us bad editors? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're a bad editor, I'm a bad editor... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs)

You're placing yourself in the wrong category. I would vote for you when you'd run. Ucucha 00:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no way on God's Earth that I'd ever get through an RfA; Ealdgyth on the other hand almost certainly could. I only say "almost certainly" because of the inevitable "no need for the tools" and "not enough experience at AFD/CSD/ANI ... (insert the TLA of your favourite haunt for admin wannabes here)". She may though have upset a few at FAC by being critical of their sourcing, and an RfA would be a good way of flushing them out. In general though I think that an RfA ought to be viewed in the light of is a week of having every minutiae of your wikipedia career microscopically examined to support the opinion of someone who was determined to oppose anyway really worth the "privilege" of being able to block other editors, see deleted content, or move a few pages around. For myself, I've taken the janitor analogy to heart. If I want something like that doing I'll ask one of the staff; don't see why I need to be bothered with it. Still, it's Ealdgyth's choice, and I'm sure she'll do whatever she thinks is best for her. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

My experience with RFA isn't as negative as what you describe (my RFA a few months ago); I mostly had lots of people telling me I was doing a great job and saying I'd make a great admin. But I agree completely with your last sentence. Your faithful janitor, Ucucha 01:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I just have to comment on this - apologies for intruding: Only bad editors (like myself&I'm an admin on a couple of other projects) should be admins - the good editors should produce&improve valuable content so that there is something that is worth while administrating... Keep up the good work all of you :) Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Malleus told me if you ran for admin he'd put up a vid on YouTube of him standing in his local pub singing "The Lonely Goatherd" at the top of his lungs. --Moni3 (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh. My. God. ... That ... image. My eyes. They burn. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You could not be more intrigued, could you? Go on. I'll nominate you and include the yodeling lyrics in my opening comments. For Malleus. --Moni3 (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Moni3 is such a liar, but do whatever you think best Ealdgyth. I won't think any less of you if you join the dark side. Could even be handy having a friendly janitor for a change. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Was I not supposed to let Ealdgyth know you divulged your innermost secret to me? How clumsy of me. But tut tut, Malleus. Don't be angry. Man up and start practicing your scales. --Moni3 (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

When will you Americans ever learn to spell correctly? "Practice" is a noun; "practise" is the verb. I have a deep and pathological hatred of musicals; I rush to the remote whenever singing comes on in the middle of what otherwise looked like a play, and I can't even bear to be in the same room when there's an opera screeching away. Still, it's a good job we're not all alike. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)