User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 12

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Heh

Thank goodness for short articles! Yay! re this .:) ceranthor 21:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Miss Meyers

Hi, copied the comments to Talk:Miss Meyers as you suggested. --Philcha (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

And I've replied to most of them. Keep in mind lots of folks don't watch GAN, so comments there won't necessarily be noticed. (I have 1300 bishops, horses, and various other historical things on my watchlist. If I added GAN in there, I'd never see vandalism, and since I'm often the only person watching those articles, missing vandalism would be bad.) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Chicado V

Sorry you're getting conflicting input. Chin up, and all that. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(whaps Ling) You turning Brit on me here? Stiff upper lip? Come clean my garage (mice got in the birdseed...eeewww...) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Miss Meyers and pedigree

Hey!
I really do think your approach to documenting the pedigree source is obscure... Miss Meyers is not at FAC. Can I fool with the pedigree section for a day or two, putting it the way I would wanna see it, so you can peruse it at your leisure? Then feel free to revert, I guess... but... I dunno what to do about the current FAC. let's discuss this at Miss Meyers; the current FAC has a couple weeks before it becomes promotable anyhow.
And for the record: User:Ling.Nut/dogling Ling.Nut (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If you made me go through ALL that over Chicado and do not support, I swear I will ... something. Something evil. Like putting wikicookies on your talk page every day for a month. Or turning it pink with little cute hearts all over it. Yes, fiddle with Miss Meyers' pedigree if you want. But, really, human genealogical works do indeed have footnotes like that on them at times. We could put a note at the bottom, I suppose, but then someone would probably object that it wasn't properly cited. When I do pedigrees for clients, I have a form that includes that information already at the bottom - gives all the abbreviations, etc. And I never have to source the pedigree, since they are paying me for my expertise ... (Yes, I'm actually an expert at this sort of thing. I've even got published books.) As for the "horsies" thing, like I said at Chicado's talk, there is a world of difference between even a 60 pound dog and the 1000+ pound horses. Think of horses as just "cute little animals" and you can die, very very easily. I've got the broken foot bones, wrenched back, etc. to prove it. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Peter McCue next in the queue? Ling.Nut (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Peter McCue's going to be a problem.... I'll explain later. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Black_Hawk_War 2

Take a look at Wakefield in the refs section. Open in edit mode. You'll see I put an inline note of the original publication name and date of the book. I wasn't sure of best how to do this. Pls advise. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've had a similar issue before. I would make the hidden comment visible and just leave that at the end of the cite template. That makes sure that readers have all the information available about the source. Karanacs (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I was doing a big run on some Pakistani locations and noticed there were some other articles using parser functions. Didn't know about the #tag: function... luckily I only did four. Thanks again. Rich Farmbrough, 22:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC).

Gregorian mission

Hi ! I'm a French wikipedian, who is translating some of your articles about members of the Gregorian mission. It's a very good work ! Very impressive ! But I have one question about something written in Honorius' article : it's written that "When Honorius died in 653, he was the last of the Gregorian missionaries alive.". But on James' article : "James the Deacon (died after 671 AD)". If James was a member of the mission, was he not the last member alive ?

Thanks for your help, --Hlaford Eanfrith (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Conflicting sources, that's it. The time periods pretty obscure, and obviously the secondary sources conflict here. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on Chicado V.

--Hekerui (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Ealdgyth, I just wanted to thank you for checking the links for my FA nom of Quiriguá. Many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOUR award

Thanks for the new WP:FOUR award nomination. We try to keep the queue down by encouraging each nominator to second (re-review) one of the other nominations and award it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Crown Fountain FAC 4

I have replied at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive4.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Black Hawk War ref

Hi. I got this article to GA and am prepping it for FAC. Right now I'm working the refs. But I am stuck on what is currently ref 49: "Marshall, Janet A. and Marshall, Mary K., Black Hawk's War 1832, 1997, pp. 90-94." The only other thing I can find out about it is that it seems to have been published in Janesville, WI. No publisher or ISBN. Can you help here to get enough info so the ref will hold up on a FAC? Thanks. I'll check back here for a response. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's looking very much like a self-published work. World Cat entry shows it's held by only 10 libraries, none of them university or college libraries, or anything much beyond the subject area. I'd replace it, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Black Hawk War

I just listed this at FAC. Input appreciated. The nom is here. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album)/archive1

Hi there, I'm not certain if you're watching this page (recently hardly anyone strikes resolved comments at FAC) so I'll just mention here that of the two sources in this article you weren't sure about, two have now gone to the great reflist in the sky. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Ealdgyth. You have new messages at Hamiltonstone's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

So I herd u liek bishupz?

I know he's a thousand years too late for you, but can you have a look at Mandell Creighton? Between him, and the (forthcoming) filling in of the redlinks at Louise Creighton and Bishop Creighton House, I'm too familiar with the topic and there are probably glaring "obvious to me but not to everyone else" problems with him. As you seem to understand them, can you check that I've formatted the infobox correctly—I think he's one of the cases where an infobox is actually useful, but {{Infobox Bishop}} seems incomprehensible even by infobox standards.

Thank you... – iride scent 00:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

FLRC delegate election

Hi Ealdgyth! I'm just dropping by to let you know of the FLRC delegate election that begins on Tuesday. You may run in the election by following the instructions on the page. If you don't wish to run, please come and vote sometime next week! The election starts Tuesday and ends Saturday. For more information, check out the opening section of the page. Cheers, iMatthew ^talk at 19:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You need this

For cleaning up after everyone else, with attention to proper sourcing AND format!, I hereby award Ealdgyth with the “Cool Award.” Montanabw^(talk) 05:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs: Wulfhelm; Athelm; Bishop of Gloucester; Ceolnoth; Nothelm; Province of Canterbury; Endurance; Justus; Mare; Feologild; Rodeo; Bede; Aelfsige; Bishop of Edinburgh; Summer; Bertwald; Bishop of Winchester; Chicken fingers; Wulfred

Cleanup: Gypsy Vanner horse; Horse racing; Economy of England
Merge: Cremello; Polar region; Established church
Add Sources: Henry Deane; Archbishop of Wales; Standardbred horse
Wikify: Gait; Plastic welding; 3D Movie Maker
Expand: Connemara pony; Oswiu of Northumbria; Tudor period

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) 18:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Psephos and Brian Booth

Ah, has its own articlce YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Virginia

Ealdgyth, I was hoping to get your wise opinion on the article Virginia. I'm planning on putting it up for FAC sometime next week, and wondered if you could give the references a look over before I do so, in order to preempt any issues with them. In particular, I want your opinion on how I've referenced multiple pages in books. What I've done is used one citation for each sentence I want to cite, and just added the various page numbers to the "pages" field of the Cite book template, like so: "Wallenstein, Peter (2007). Cradle of America: Four Centuries of Virginia History. University Press of Kansas. pp. 8–9, 22, 104, 253–254, 406–407." I recognize this might not be the best way for a few reasons, but would prefer it to having five different in-line citations for the same book, or to having a separate Bibliography section using Harvard Style. In all your time looking at references, what do you think is the best method you've seen for accomplishing this? Or is there anyone else here on Wikipedia you think would be good to ask? Thanks, and I hope you can support the article when it does go up.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 19:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ealdgyth is off enjoying herself elsewhere at the moment, so I'll give you the dubious benefit of my opinion. I don't like the style of citation you're suggesting, because it's not obvious which part of the book is supporting which claim. My strong preference is to use the {{Harvnb}} template to refer to different page(s), with a separate Bibliography section for all of the dead tree sources. Having said that, you might get away with your citation style at FAC if that's what's bothering you, but I wouldn't bank on it. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, last week you commented on the referencing and overlinking of the article on Virginia over at its FAC page. Myself and other editors have gone through the article to fix what you had mentioned, so I was hoping you could see if we'd caught those issues, and if so, if you could sign off on the article, at least for those parts. Best-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 15:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources query

Hello Ealdgyth, a small question for you. What is the stance on providing access dates for sources such as academic journals and books? Is it necessary, appreciated or discouraged? The issue has arisen in a GAN review and I thought you were probably the person to ask. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It depends on whether or not the journal in question is wholy online or not. If it's only available online, then they are required. If it's just a courtesy link to something like JSTOR or the like, it's not required, but it's not bad practice in my mind. Does that help? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Would third-party publishers noted on a journal's website qualify the journal as being available in print? This is the case with all of the journals published by the Public Library of Sciences (e.g. PLoS Biology, PLoS Genetics). For more information, see the last question and its response here: http://www.plos.org/about/faq.html#plosjournals. Emw2012 (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

There are two reasons to put access dates on .. in order to show what exact form of the website you accessed and to show when it was indeed a live page in case the content later moves/goes dead. In this second case, the date is there so that others know when to start searching for the moved content. It's generally a good idea to give accessdates, whether or not it's also available in print, just because it does make hunting down deadlinks easier. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the References section of Electron, a top/high importance article which passed FA last month, the rules for where access dates should and shouldn't be applied aren't readily apparent to me. References to the journal Science, for example, have access dates filled out in some references but not others. It seems that those which lack access dates are generally older, but I imagine there's some rule of thumb for when to apply the parameter. Could you explain the rationale being used there? If there's a helpful section in WP-space that explains this, I would be much obliged if you could point me in the right direction. If there is no such explanation of this convention in the MoS or related pages, do you think it would be useful to add one? Emw2012 (talk)

I'm not an expert on MOS or formatting issues. I work at FAC on the reliablity of sources, and only pick up formatting issues when they slap me in the face. I suggest you bring this up with someone on the main MOS page if you're concerned about it, because quite honestly, it's not something I really worry about. Sorry, but that's the truth. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for your input. Emw2012 (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Same as Emw2012, thank you for the input. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Watch out...

Or you're gonna be unemployed soon. lol

Seriously though, I'd like to hear what the expert thinks on my FAC source contribs. Any advice? RB88 (T) 20:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked at your discussion on the The Dark Side of the Moon talk page as an example. Things I noted:

You want to reference more than just the reference number, I always give the first part of the ref itself. When you're looking at something like Virginia where there are hundreds of citations, they can change number pretty frequently. So something like "Current ref 7 (Name of author...)" is how I refer to references.
Parrot is correct, if he didn't actually see the printed ref, he can't cite it, he can only cite to what he's seen, in regards to the urls you mentioned.

But what if an editor (or even IP) other than Parrot HAS seen it and adds it and Parrot then removes it because HE hasn't seen it. Therein lies one of the things that puzzles me most about the "cite where you saw it" thing in an open encyclopaedia. What about if I have subscription to somewhere and add it, but I'm not the main editor or nominator? RB88 (T) 01:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As long as someone has seen it, it's good. With the horse articles (such as Arabian horse) a number of the sources are only known by one or the other of the editors, so you have to trust that someone has it and read it. No one should be removing sources just because THEY haven't seen it, as long as someone has. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

A big one is that you can't mix the citation and cite families. It's just one of those things that we get to enforce.
I only ask for abbreviations to be spelled out when it's not obvious what they are. BBC, CNN, ESPN, etc. are so well known that they don't need to be spelled out.
Check the isbns, click on them and check World Cat for library holdings on books, to see how much they are in libraries. Double check that they aren't self-published, lulu.com and iUniverse are giveaways on that, but you really just have to develop a sixth sense on when a publisher smells off. A good rule of thumb is that if the publisher isn't located in a "normal" city, such as New York, London, etc., you want to look closer. It's not just websites we're looking at, trusting that anything listed as a published book or magazine is reliable is a way to big trouble. It helps that I've sold used books for a number of years, so I have some familiarity with different specialty publishers.
Look for inconsitencies with newspapers. You'll often see mixed up in the refs things like "usatoday.com" with "USA Today", which is inconsistent and a MOS problem.
Do not ever "suggest" a cite/or citation template family preference. It will just end badly, folks love their own chosen one and it will get you in a catfight quicker than most anything.

Miaow, indeed. RB88 (T) 01:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

My trick for seeing if the template families are mixed: Hit "edit" and scroll down to the bottom of the edit page, where there is a list of templates used in the article. You can ignore the "Citation/core" template, but if there are any plain "citations" in with anything from "cite" ... mention it.
Make yourself a subapge in your user space, set up boilerplate text that you use and abuse often. Makes life a lot simpler to just copy/paste some of the often used bits.
As per the above, use that subpage to keep track of sources that are often used but proven to your satisfaction reliable for most everything. Mine is at User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet, but don't borrow mine, set your own up, it'll give you more credibility.

I prefer a more pragmatic way of dealing with things. Plus, a good memory helps. Although in time I guess it might have to be done. RB88 (T) 01:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of putting big long lists on the talk page of the article. Half my job is educating other reviewers about sourcing, so keeping it on the FAC page helps educate others.
My own personal pet peeve is folks using Google books and not the actual book for referencing, but that's not something you can oppose over just yet. We're slowly getting there, the FA criteria now requires a step above just the basic WP:V and WP:RS.

What if the citation is complete and accurate though for the information it covers, even if the editor only saw a snippet view? RB88 (T) 01:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Snippet views are baaaaaad. You can't tell from a snippet whether the information you are seeing is placed in the appropriate context. There could be 10 pages on why idea X is bogus, and then a paragraph on why X might be true, but if you only see that last paragraph you could easily get the wrong impression, and the article could reflect an inaccurate weight. Karanacs (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

GoogleBooks links should be piled in the Grand Canyon and set on fire. Serious plutonium. Get the book always. Be very wary of editors who indicate they have not laid eyes on the entire book. --Moni3 (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the book Moni. To take one extreme example, I don't know if the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is on Googlebooks or not, but if it was, why should an editor have to see every single entry if they're only interested in Myra Hindley? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Reading that again, perhaps I'm misunderstanding the point you were making. Maybe you were suggesting that the Googlebooks version may not not be an accurate transcription of the actual book's contents? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Moni's point is more related to something like say ... Franco-Mongol alliance, (which spawned the only ArbCom I was ever involved in...) where an editor was cherrypicking bits and pieces without looking at the full context of the quotation. Most of the time you're not dealing with something like a dictionary entry or short ONDB entry, but rather a long work devoted to the subject, where getting the full context is important. There will always be exceptions (say, dictionaries, etc.) but most of the time, you should be using the whole book, not just a google books view. Especially not their "snippet" view which doesn't even give you the whole page, just a line or two. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. The snippet view doesn't even give enough to help decide whether the book's actually worth trying to get hold of or not. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The single worst articles to do are the town/city/state/country ones. Folks will try to use anything at all off any sort of website, plus old outdated books. Those sorts of articles give me heart attacks.

Don't worry, I am a high-level perfectionist. I'll check every small nook and cranny. RB88 (T) 01:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Although strictly speaking I don't check the statements in the article against the sources given, I do try to make sure there are citations for all information, that what is sourced to reviews of books/albums/etc are only critical reviews, etc. Special care is needed with BLPs, which get a bit more scrutiny from me.
A thing to watch for is when the nominator says that a site has been replaced, you want to know WHAT they replaced it with. It doesn't do any good to replace an unreliable site with another unreliable site. Certain nominators you can trust more than others, you'll get to know who is a regular and who is new.
I rarely oppose over sourcing, it has to be pretty bad to get one from me. I have recently moved to stating that if most of the websites lack publishers/access dates/etc. that those need to be fixed before I review. Often if the refs are in bad shape, the FAC will fail on prose or other issues, and little sense in killing myself making a big long list that is going to be buried under prose opposes.
I also dislike music articles, they just aren't my thing. If you can do a lot of them, I'd love you forever.

First of all, :(. It's my bread and butter. But I guess I've found my marketable unique selling point. I'll leave the pony articles to you though. ;) RB88 (T) 01:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
One thing on music articles; for chartings, nominators often claim that a site is reliable because it is listed on WP:GOODCHARTS. That's usually a positive sign, but don't let it prevent you from looking at the site in question yourself and forming your own opinions. Sometimes, sites will be put on lists of reliable sources for a topic without justification. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL... I'm the only one who writes single horse articles as opposed to horse breeds or other horse related articles. And I've had my paws on most of the breed articles too. Horse illnesses and tack I don't touch. For that matter, I have done most of the medieval bishop FAs... blech!Ealdgyth - Talk 02:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ealdgyth - Talk 00:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Writes obscure local history article, using obscure book only available in local history section of university. Article sits for a year and a half, then random editor adds "citation needed" to several sentences. Another editor removes tags. Third editor reverts. Original editor knows that the only ~~amphibian~~ living being to see the book in the last half-century somehow just can't be bothered to go hop for it. Naughty editor makes up plausible page numbers- inserts refs- everybody else now happy. --Ning-ning (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

... and to preempt that scenario many are tempted to cite just about every sentence, so that they don't have to go trekking back to the library when someone asks for a citation for "most human beings having five fingers". --Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha. I got this from the off when I joined. Have cited every single possible sentence/run of sentences in all my articles, and even then people keep messing with the infobox which is the only bit uncited. Harrumph! RB88 (T) 17:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Ealdgyth. Thanks for the input on the HowStuffWorks source on Malleus' page, I greatly appreciate your time and input. I did look over here when Mal mentioned it, but noticed that you are often quite busy - and I hadn't built up any "credit" yet ;). I guess this means I now owe you one ... feel free to request a hand on anything at any time, and I'll do my best to repay the debt. (I do read talk page headers ...lol). Thanks again, Cheers and best. — Ched : ? 11:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Barbara L

Looks pretty good Ealdgyth, well up to your usual high standard. I just one lingering doubt, and it's about those speed indexes (indices?) again. The text seems to variously say that they're "awarded", "won", or "earned", but those terms aren't synonymous to me. Probably once again showing my ignorance of horse racing—I've been to dog races but never to a horse race—I'd naively have assumed that horses were assessed as having a particular speed index.

I believe as well that the MoS is changing/has changed with regard to dates in the format YYYY-MM-DD, like the {{Inflation}} template currently produces, so it might be an idea to preempt any objections on that score by making a request for change to that template.

Otherwise looks fine to me. Good luck at FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Monday. I'm off for an exciting weekend of art fairing... whee. SI's are "awarded" in the sense that the AQHA certifies them, so any of the three terms can be properly used, although "won" is probably the least precise. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Or, put differently, horses earn the right to be "awarded" or certified their very own speed index by winning races...or in other words Ealdgyth is right, I just can't explain why I know this. LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 03:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Manchester Martyrs

Thanks for your input. This article has been an absolute nightmare right from the start. What is it that makes Irish-Americans so single-mindedly determined to rewrite history? Many in England agreed that the Irish were being treated unfairly, and wanted to see reform, just didn't agree with the violence. Are we English always to be condemned to Hell because of the potato blight? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The nationalists have adopted a neutral point of view and blamed The British rather than the English, which seems unfair on the Welsh and Scots as the English dominated the union. Nev1 (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think it's part of the whole guilt complex thing that some American's have about slavery. Being of southern ancestry, there are just certain things you cannot say about your ancestors, and I suspect that some American's feel that they need to compensate or something by raking the Brits over the coals. Or maybe the two things aren't connected at all, honestly, who knows? I love my country, but no one in this world is perfect (not even Mother Theresa or the Dalai Lama) and trying to see things in the past through the lens of the present is just an exercist in futility. Btw, how are you sure they are Irish Americans and not just Irish? (p.s. I didn't watchlist the article, should I?) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No need to watchlist the article, things will sort themselves out there one way or another. On the general subject of slavery though, I think that we English can be proud of the role that our Royal Navy played in stamping out the slave trade. But we're none of us perfect, with an unblemished history; not even the Irish republicans. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've gone to Vicksburg and stood in the Confederate trench spot where one of my ancestors fought, and then went across the battlefield and stood in the Union trench spot where two more of my ancestors fought (father-son pair). So I have a ... unique perspecitive on the whole war. Turning back to the subject of the "martyrs", I'm not sure why it's so important to put the ranks they held in the American Civil War in the lead, surely that doesn't have any bearing on things in England, right? Or is this something else that my stupid Americanism is leaving me out of? (I'm not from Boston and all my Irish ancestry is Scots-Irish and was here before the Revolution, so I don't honestly pay much attention to the "Troubles" .. I figure we've got enough problems here in the States without worrying about problems across the pond.) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The ranks they held during the American Civil War need to be mentioned of course, but not in the lead. We in England also had a Civil War, in which brother fought brother. Just because yours happened a little bit later than ours doesn't make it any more significant. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce Merlin FAC

Hi Ealdgyth, I was wondering if you could have another look at my rationales for website reference use at the Rolls-Royce Merlin FAC review as I now have time to correct any problems if needed. I am worried that the lack of any further input (by anyone) there was an ominous sign! Probably more likely that everyone is busy elsewhere. Many thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 03:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the last two remaining questioned web references which can now be struck hopefully, many thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Otto Julius Zobel

Hello... This hasn't had a source review yet I think. I don't feel confident enough because I haven't done any technical science-y articles yet. Could you do it and I'll have look at how to proceed for future reference? Thanks. RB88 (T) 20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I did one recently on this article (in July) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Otto Julius Zobel/archive1, thus I didn't repeat myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Thanks. RB88 (T) 21:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nintendo DSi fac

From Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nintendo DSi/archive1,

Bullet 1: Can you please explain to me more about mixing? I'm kinda confused when comparing it to Turok: Dinosaur Hunter.

Bullet 4: Iwata Asks is an interview and I would like to treat it that way instead of using cite web. Is this okay?

Last bullet: I've moved all those refs after ...will differ based on user preference. to avoid repetition, can I not do that because of ref 65?

Thanks, « ₣M₣ » 20:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please reply on the FAC, not on my talk page, so that everyone can follow the discussion. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI

One down... Эlcobbola _talk 21:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Philippopolis

No problem, that's what watchlists are for! I've done that many times myself...all those cities "over there" are unoriginally named. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Attachment theory

I've done the refs. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

International Space Station

Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Peer Review as to whether you feel your original comments have been dealt with, if you see any new issues with the article, and whether or not you believe the article will meet the criteria for Featured Article status. Any new comments you have would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hemming's booklet

Just letting you know I added some stuff which I'll need to revisit soon. Cavila (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Urse d'Abetot

I think the old boy's about as ready for the big time now as he ever will be. Good luck! --Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Swaminarayan/archive1

Would you please peer review the article for FA criteria, like you once did for FA Vithoba? Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Bloet

On September 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Bloet, 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)} 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.

{{User0|LargoLarry 04:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Moors murders

I was dubious about murdersuk.com as well, but the information there seemed to be accurate. Unlike you, I think, I create rather few articles, and so I often have the problem of how to deal sensitively with the previous work of others. To be pefectly honest, that's occasionally why I submit articles at GAN/FAC, so that objections like yours will be made. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL. It's probably perfectly fine as an external link, and very well may be reliable, but it's definitely iffy enough to question. Just like I query anyone else, even the regulars, and expect mine to be queried. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Gray's Inn

I know how you feel about watchlists that are too long :). Mine had 2k mainspace/userspace/namespace pages in it before I cut it down. I'm just replying to the last point - unfortunately no, very little has been written about the Inn past 1920 or so. I'm a student member of the Inn (visited it once for an employment law conference and liked it so much I relocated from the old place so hopefully they'll let me at the records in the Holker Library at some point, but that's about it. In relation to the first source - it's the Bar Council, which is the administrative and (in some respects) regulatory body for all barristers within England and Wales. Just like the Bar is in US states, the Bar Council is over here (technically the General Council of the Bar. It doesn't even have an article, which I need to deal with). The second one is just something that looked reliable - I can replace it with another source if needed, the problem is finding one in English. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I figured the bar council was something like the State Bar in the U.S. (we don't have a national Bar, it's all states, or so I'm told. I avoided all thoughts of law school, it is so NOT me..) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha. It basically is, in that you have a State Bar per jurisdiction and we have a Bar Association per jurisdiction (although the Scots have called theirs something funny, I forget what). Ironholds (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Interactions (The Spectacular Spider-Man)

Hey. I responded to your PR concerns on the article, just to let you know. If you have any additional comments or if you're the one who needs to close it (or something) come check it out. Cheers, The Flash ^{talk} 19:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Babies and blankies

I took out the bit about "folded" as well as the size. If it still needs a fact tag, slap it back on and I'll try to find something. Montanabw^(talk) 20:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica

It is good that I know how the situation arose: some of the important aticles are just so complex that timing changes and finding the time to do them mean only part of the work is done. As such high quality articles are involved I am reluctant to take it on soon but will look again next week.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sooo kind...

I did the remaining ones. Didn't bother for the Whitney Houston album and opposed cos it really needs to be withdrawn because of the editor's overeagerness. RB88 (T) 07:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Random lol RB88 (T) 15:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Well Dunn/archive1

I have replied to your sourcing concerns. If you could check back when you have a chance, I would really appreciate it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Trump Tower Chicago FAC2

There is some stray text in the middle of your comment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you forget about this one. You usually respond much faster.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

One, it'd be nice to have a link to the FAC. You said on the FAC you were going to check on things, and I haven't seen that you've changed much. On the others, do you really need me to post the normal boilerplate about how to show a website is reliable? I'm unconvinced by any of the arguments you've given, and am awaiting more information. I can post the "To determine if a website..." stuff if you'd like... (I'm also trying to get sick, and have some RL work that's obviously keeping me busy too.) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please eveluate my latest attempts and possibly comment on the image at issue as regards to its reliability.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Source check needed

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ann Arbor, Michigan/archive2, when you've got the time. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I hate city articles (whines)... tomorrow or Thursday. i'm just heading to bed. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! Dabomb87 (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Otto Julius Zobel/archive2 needs a source check. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Otto had one on its first goround in August. Ealdgyth - Talk 10:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ditto on Isambard Kingdom Brunel YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Did Ann Arbor. Brunel's just managing to stay on the right side of WP:V and WP:RS, but whether it's "high quality" sources is another question entirely. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Urse

No, nothing found. His recorded depredations seem limited to real estate! Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Suwałki Agreement ‎and GA

Could you also inform User:Renata3 of the review - she is also a major contributor to the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review & the note on my talk. However, I am terribly busy these days -- working looong hours. I will do my best to address the issues this Sunday, but I might need an extension. Will let you know. Crashing to bed now. Renata (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Alexander of Lincoln

On October 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alexander of Lincoln, 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)} 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.

—Ed (talk • contribs) 05:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident at FAC

Since you commented, the above article has undergone a number changes. I would ask you please to review the changes, to see if you have any concerns. Thank you. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I unwatched it a while ago, so that means I'm satisfied. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Suwałki Agreement

Hi Ealdgyth, I have a similar problem with British Airways: a major rewrite of the article started with {main} links being transcluded just after I commenced my Initial review. In both cases the articles could, probably, be failed for lack of stability, but it does seem a bit "unfair" on the respective nominators.

If you don't wish to quick fail, as in my case with the British Airways GAN review, can I suggest that you change the status to On hold and ignore the article for a few days? You can always fail it after a week (two weeks, etc, at your choice as reviewer) with a clear conscience if it is still unstable.

P.S. I know you are watching Hemming's Cartulary, I'm looking for one minor tweek and you can have GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, on Hemming's I didn't know if you were finished or were going to add more. As for the SA article, it's not really that it's being expanded, it's that a back and forth on Polish/non-Polish names is going on in the lead, along with some adding/reverting of the some information in the lead also. Expansion, I expect, and don't consider a breech of stability, it's when it's the back and forth with no discussion on the talk page that I start thinking edit war. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I initially removed your comment. No need to reply if you have nothing to say

Hello, Ealdgyth. You have new messages at Nosleep's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Date stamping so it archives. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is cool

http://stats.grok.se/en/2009/American%20Quarter%20Horse

I hadn't used this before, maybe you had -- type in the name of any article and see how many times it's been viewed. Change the year or the article name as one sees fit. (Interestingly, Arabian Horse many more views than the QH article...)

Date stamping so it archives. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Worcester Castle

Hi Ealdgyth. I'm suspicious of the date Ann Williams gives for Urse's loss of the castle to the ecclesiastical authorities (1088) since no online source mentions it. The castle was divided in 1217 after an enquiry- the northern half being transferred or reverted to the cathedral. Before then it was a viable military fortification, slowly being rebuilt in stone by command of King John. Ning-ning (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Remember "cathedral" is different than "bishop". Cathedral would mean the cathedral clergy as a corporate body, so the bishop could very well have lost/granted/given half to the clergy without invalidating Williams' contention. Does anything contradict Williams' statement directly? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No direct contradiction. The Beauchamp family held the castle from before 1150, so if the bishop did possess it he or his successor would have relinquished it at some time. One source ([1] probably not reliable) mentions a rebellion at Easter 1088 in which Worcester was the target; the rebels were defeated by the garrison of Worcester Castle-it may be possible that the bishop played a major role in the defence whilst Urse was elsewhere. Ning-ning (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So when are you starting to write the Worcester Castle article? This search from British History Online shows some bits that might be useful, especially this from the Victoria County History of Worcestershire. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably this weekend... (laid up with a migraine yesterday).Ning-ning (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(OD) William's statement. According to Florence of Worcester; in 1088 on the approach of the rebels to Worcester Bishop Wulfstan was in a distressed state. He was entreated by the Normans to move to the castle. On the way in he met garrison soldiers and local citizenry, whose intention was to meet the rebels on the other side of the Severn. They asked for his permission to do so, he gave his blessing, etc etc. Page 164 of A-S Worcester A. E. E. Jones, Baylis 1958. Although again it doesn't contradict Williams, it suggests that the bishop or the ecclesiastical authorities weren't in a position to take over the castle, and that Urse perhaps wasn't present, but the garrison were well organised. Ning-ning (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Red link turns blue- only a stub- I've got more in my sandbox but I need to sort out the cites.Ning-ning (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Urse's charter image

Hi Ealdgyth, if you're still wondering what the charter image says, at least in Latin, the editor of the cartulary already transcribed it; I was going to do it for fun but that saves me from wasting my time! It's on Google Books, pg. 253 if that link goes somewhere strange. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Amador Valley High School

Hello Ealdgyth - I have left a comment under my.hsj about whether you thought high school newspaper articles would be considered reliable sources. Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Amador_Valley_High_School. Thank you - Deltawk (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Convert question

On the 2009 ICF Canoe Sprint World Championships for convert, are you referring to the distances such as 200m, 500 m, and 1000 m listed even though those are competition distances like that of the 100 m in athletics? Please advise because I have done that with weight and volumes already. Chris (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see conversions yes, unless there is a guideline against that for atheletic contests. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The athletic events are left in the metric distances like 100 m, ,the K-1 1000 m event in canoe sprint, or the 100 m freestyle in swimming. Those distances are listed in metric to the average user.

And now to something a little different. The 1997 shown is piped in from the 1997 ICF Canoe Sprint World Championships. Chris (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not intuitive to the reader that it leads there though, I strongly suggest making it clearer to the reader that it leads to something besides an article on 1997. As for the other, with horse articles (such at Easy Jet or Go Man Go, both FAs) the consensus has been to convert the traditional distance figures so I'm not exactly asking for something that's never done. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

For more information on canoe sprint (canoe flatwater until November 2008), please see [2] and click on the events on the page. The distances are in metric. Check WP:MOS on dates and number for conversions. Are you sure you want to convert these even though they are listed as those distances. I will change the 1997 and have that piped in as "event previously in 1997". I hope this helps. Chris (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I won't give GA status if you don't convert, but I'd like to see something that says on Wikipedia the convention isn't to convert distances even in the names of the events, that's all. Note that MOS:CONVERSIONS says to convert everything, pretty much. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what MOS:CONVERSIONS says below on the event distances like the K-1 1000 m:

"When units are part of the subject of a topic—nautical miles in articles about the history of nautical law, SI units in scientific articles, yards in articles about American football—it can be excessive to provide conversions every time a unit occurs. It could be best to note that this topic will use the units (possibly giving the conversion factor to another familiar unit in a parenthetical note or a footnote), and link the first occurrence of each unit but not give a conversion every time it occurs."

I can conert the distances to imperial untits on the first mention of them, but leave it in metric afterwards if you would prefer that. Chris (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is honestly a very small part of the reason the article's on hold. The prose and organizational issues are much more pressing, and if they are sorted out, I'm not that concerned about this point. Why don't we worry about the conversion issue later in the review? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I am done with the edits per request. I still have a question about converting the competition distance from metric to imperial units, but everything else has been done per your request. Chris (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Lead adjusted per request. Chris (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  - References fixed per request with publisher addition. Chris (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For being patient in reviewing the 2009 ICF Canoe Sprint World Championships in getting this article to GA status, I award you this barnstar as a matter of thanks. Chris (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Something totally different..

While there certainly has been an increased amount of edits recently, I'm not sure I'd call it an "edit war" per se. Looking at the history, I can't really see too many blatant reverting going on, and I think we just have multiple editors trying to sort things out. As long as it doesn't escalate into a full blown edit war, I'd recommend giving it another 3-4 days or so, and seeing how this pans out. Not sure if I'd make too many more posts in the review itself about "stopping the edit war", because I'd be concerned that they'd just stop fighting long enough for it to pass, and then resume once it's promoted. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's calmed down into more of a working things out thing now. For a few days, it was add/revert/add differently phrased/revert.. but it's looking better. I'm going to sit on it a bit more and see what happens. Thanks for the advice, on this sort of thing always better to get many different opinions. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Virginia Tech massacre FAR

Ealdgyth, do you have an opinion on the books mentioned at the bottom of Wikipedia:Featured article review/Virginia Tech massacre/archive1? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As requested

Wikipedia:Peer review/Nick Griffin/archive1 Parrot of Doom 21:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As requested 2

False modesty, eh? You've done a pretty good job with this one, even for a non-"document" scholar, to borrow your own words. There is of course some room for expansion. I think the intricate structure of Hemming's part could be worked out a bit, without having to resort to a detailed table. Have to stop writing for now, as my computer is experiencing a bit of a [insert nasty word here]. Cavila (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Where's the bishop/pony articles when you need them?

I'll have a look later at what's left. Hopefully, people have got the hang of citation uniformity. RB88 (T) 18:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

LOLOLOL... you so dream. I've been doing this a year and a half and I'm still pointing out the simplest of errors. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

We should do something about that. Euthanasia maybe? (How do you euthanase(?) Wiki accounts?) RB88 (T) 18:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, I'm liking that I only have an amount of pop articles to review I can count on one hand. I must have scared a few people. I trust you're doing McDonald's Cycle Center, yes? RB88 (T) 20:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It was done not that long ago, so I'm not too worried about it. Tony's pretty good about not switching back to bad refs Ealdgyth - Talk 20:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

K. You could always send me for a surprise visit. I've done the ones recently nominated. Also found out that the author of that source on Remain in Light works for Xfm, too. Should completely fulfil the criteria now. Have a revisit when you have time. RB88 (T) 21:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

For you

		The Biography Barnstar
		I award this Biography Barnstar to Ealdgyth, who excels in crafting biographies of interesting, yet mostly-forgotten, personalities. It's not easy to weave historical background information seamlessly into the narrative, but your articles do it well. Karanacs (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I really enjoyed Urse d'Abetot :) Karanacs (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed him. I enjoyed writing him. He was not supposed to grow that much! Back to bishops for a bit. I've got two in PR, if you wanna look at William Longchamp and Thomas of Bayeux. I've not felt like writing horse ones lately... I blame Montana who has made me do all that citation finding on the glossary article. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about his curse- reckon what he got cursed for wasn't the encroachment but the digging of a ditch through the cemetery, and the resultant fun and games the labourers would have had with the bones (my brother's old firm was involved in a similar way with a plague pit in London- they were cursed by Lambeth Council). Ning-ning (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

'My bad! :-P Montanabw^(talk) 00:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Award

Well done :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

How does she find the time ?!?! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't edit the drama boards? I avoid RfAr, RfA, ANI, AN, etc. like the plague. And since I work from home, it's a lot easier to do a bit, then do real work, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just reminded of..."Hey, Historical babes..." - from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Holy cow, I hadn't realized you had 15 of each, Ealdgyth. Great work! Karanacs (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(blushes) Actually, I have 20 FAs, one FL, plus saves for 2 FAs and one FL, over 50 GAs and something like 30 or 40 DYKs. And one featured topic. (blushes) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I interest you in some articles on Texas history? I'm apparently behind. Karanacs (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't get sucked into being an admin. (preens). Ealdgyth - Talk 02:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

See, she's a true genius! Montanabw^(talk) 03:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

UIUC library

When you're at the library, I have an extremely obscure request: could you look up the 1844 edition of Journal des savants? Supposedly there is a review by Alexis Paulin Paris of Auguste-Arthur Beugnot's second volume of Lois in the Recueil des historiens des croisades; I think it's supposed to be on pg. 248. I say "supposedly" because I looked it up online and there was no trace of the review - I don't entirely trust the scanned version though so I'd like to look at the hard copy, but my university doesn't have it that far back. It's all in French of course, but ideally I'd just like to know if it actually exists... Adam Bishop (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Printed and added to my stack. It's really scary what U of I has, honestly. I've done some digging in their stacks and found some really obscure horse stuff before, which is always good because horse breeding history is almost as hard to find as medieval manuscripts. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs: Bishop of Winchester; Endurance; Wulfred; Wulfhelm; Feologild; Athelm; Bertwald; Constantine I; Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!; Nothelm; Mass flow; Bishop of Edinburgh; Rodeo; Rače-Fram; Bishop of Gloucester; Mare; Aelfsige; Bishop of Sodor and Man; Ceolnoth

Cleanup: Edward V of England; Gypsy Vanner horse; Henry the Young King
Merge: Kingdom of Cornwall; Legendary Dukes of Cornwall; Air traffic controller
Add Sources: Standardbred horse; Henry Deane; William Orlando Butler
Wikify: European School, Culham; Monophyly; Plastic welding
Expand: Edmund I of England; Equestrianism; Connemara pony

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) 01:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Damn, that bot's good. I don't know which of Rače-Fram, Air traffic controller, or Plastic welding suits you best. That is, leaving out the other 75% of articles which you probably already know about, given that you wrote them. – iride scent 18:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, it's cheap entertainment! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"Ah ze children of ze night; vot sveet music zey make"

William Orlando Butler has got to be Christopher Lee's long-lost grandfather, mind. – iride scent 19:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out how Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman got on there! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And Mare has not been tagged as a stub for over two years... whazzup wit' dat? But yes, E, Plastic welding is SOOOO you! Montanabw^(talk) 02:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Dog alert!

Attention! the dogs are barking in cold places again! See this (no horses, though) Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Earl of Clare

EALDGYTH: Since I cannot access the information you suggested, and because I respect your expertise, I will agree to any footnote or any other change you recommend. I no longer want to pursue this. This is a game to others that I will no longer play. I will absolutely agree to the footnote that you choose. I think it will be, at least, a fair mention of the medieval earls, even though they are disputed here. Would you please undertake this for me. It would mean alot and then I could be done with it. Mugginsx (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Mugginsx (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

EALDGYTH, See, I'm slowly learning the process of styling, etc. Very slowly I'm afraid. Anyway, I wanted to thank you for your help. I also wanted you to know that I may be able to access the Oxford DNB information you suggested through a third person. You see, I have contacted a English author of both non-fiction and fictional books in the medieval to late medieval period with whom I have corresponded with in the past. He also has a PhD in medieval history. He has responded that since Richard de Clare signed the Magna Carter, Richard de Clare, Earl of Clare, he would agree that this title was probably valid and recognized by the Crown at that time. In addition, a early medieval scholar at Oxford will also get back to me. Naturally, I will take their opinions as "the last word" on the subject but I wanted you to know that I did listen to your advice and asked them for the specific research you indicated, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and will avail myself of this and any other material available through these gentlemen. Thank you for your help and suggestions!

Horse article.

Hi there, fellow Wikipedian : )

I've added a section for you to check in the "Horse" article's discussion section. InternetMeme (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

sources

Can you please provide sources to support your assertion on CC talk page about what historians agree and disagree? Do you have some source that counts all historians POV's on this issue? I have not misused sources and I am offended at your accusation. I have just added yet another fine scholar who agrees. See p. 10 and 11 [3] - All I am trying to do is show Reader that some historians agree and some disagree with the Church's perspective on its own origins. I feel harassed about an issue that should not even be an issue. The Church believes it was founded by Jesus, we have this referenced to the Catechism. Some historians agree and some disagree. What is the problem with putting this referenced fact on the page? NancyHeise ^talk 05:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, I agree with much of what has already been posted by Harmakheru, especially as regards to the sources. I don't think it's intentional, but it is important that the entire context of the work being used as a source be taken into account, that's all. The new link you give here just proves the point, you've done a google search without reading the entire work, so you cannot know whether the information is taken out of context or not in terms of the authors entire thrust of argument. My problem isn't with the part the church believes, it's with the part about the historians. I think we're better off just leaving the whole bit about the historians out of the lead, since we cannot give the correct context. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

invitation

Can you please come here [4] and discuss. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 06:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

FAC

Hi Ealdgyth, I responded to your comments. ceranthor 21:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The days are starting to add up, would you mind checking asap? ceranthor 23:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

PR Strikes

Can you strike Wikipedia:Peer review/Jay Pritzker Pavilion/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you've taken care of most of them, no need for me to strike, you can if you feel the need. (PR is different than FAC in that regard). Ealdgyth - Talk 17:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For being one of the copyeditors and reviewers who helped get Makinti Napanangka to FAC, but also for just generally being part of the FAC team. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Bede's Historia

After a long time I have made the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum longer by adding text from the Bede article. I hope it is an improvement. However I do not know how to amend the complex citations which have moved from Bede to this article, perhaps you can help.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to raise FT criteria to requiring 50% featured

Hi, there is currently a proposal to raise the percentage of articles featured topics need to have featured to 50%, from 1 September 2010, and as someone with a topic with less than 50% of articles featured, this change if passed will directly affect you. Any input on your part to the discussion, and opinions both for and against the proposal, would be most welcome - rst20xx (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Emails as sources

I'm currently in contact via email with the creator of a game whose article I am improving, and am wondering about WP's policy on emails as sources. I can't seem to find anything regarding any conditions which have to be met for these to be considered reliable sources. If you know the policy regarding this or could point me in its direction it would be enormously appreciated! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

They'd be pretty much impossible to verify by others, unless they were publically posted on the creator's own site. It'd be like trying to use a letter you recieved that wasn't available in a public archive. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, how would you suggest I receive the information from this individual? Publishing a discussion by email on their site, or the information resulting from the discussion, would count as a reliable source then? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Your problem is that if you or he publishes it, it's self-published and thus has to jump through the WP:SPS hoops. Is it really that important of information? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The information will be crucial, especially since I think, with enough effort, it could easily obtain FA status. Some of the information is posted at other sites, however some of these would probably fail the general reliability that sites must have! You can probably see why I asked for help with this issue. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Qwest Field

I addressed your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Qwest Field/archive1. This is my first attempt at an FAC but on the few GAs I have offered opinions on I get so annoyed when people rebut the assistance which I did to you twice kind of. Let me know if you have any follow-up on those. Another editor just put up some general copy editing concerns so I am hitting everything. I'm actually enjoying getting all of these things squared away so it is completely appreciated. Thanks!Cptnono (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Canada

Hi Ealdgyth. Can you do a source check on this? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 02:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Kanhopatra/archive1

Please comment about Kanhopatra, in in consideration FA criteria. Your comments about Vithoba (now FA) were very useful. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Castle

Hi, the above article has recently undergone a massive expansion with the intention of eventually getting it onto the mainpage. With that in mind, I was wondering if you could take a look at the article and see what you think. I've asked Malleus to take a look at the prose and was hoping that you might be able to highlight anything important that's missing. If you're not intereste in castles, fair enough but I thought it worth asking as you're a member of the Crusades task force and know what it takes to get an article to FA. Thanks for your time, Nev1 (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if you could drop by talk:castle when you've got time and comment on the progress in response to your comments, particularly on whether the explanation of feudalism is sufficient. Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine as it gives more time for feedback from the Milhist peer review. I must admit that I'm disappointed it's only attracted one (all too brief) review, I thought Milhist would have been all over it but they seem more interested in modern warfare and dull battleships. Nev1 (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award

As a past WP:FOUR awardee you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing question

A quick question for you... I'm reviewing Kiliaen van Rensselaer (Dutch merchant) for GA status, and the article has a large number of sources that link to several documents on Wikisource. I seem to remember reading some place that it is not appropriate to source to documents on other Wikimedia projects, but I can't seem to find the relevant discussion/guideline/policy. I may also be completely wrong on this with regards to Wikisource! Would you mind letting me know your take on the issue, and perhaps giving me a link to a relevant page, if you know of one? Dana boomer (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh, and thanks for butting in on the British Racing Hall of Fame page. I wasn't getting anywhere with requests for third-party sources; guess I wasn't explaining what I wanted as well as I should have been. Dana boomer (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

On the Wikisource stuff... I'm always leary of it, but I'd ask on the GAN talk page. I'm a bit less picky with GANs than I am with FACs, and the sourcing reqs are only the minimum WP standards at GAN. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Allright, thanks. Have asked there and had a pretty good response. Dana boomer (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Hi Ealdgyth. I've been working off and on for about two years on Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, which I think is getting close to FA quality. However, one big paragraph about trolleys depends wholly on a source that appears to be a self-published monograph. The paragraph in question is at the top of Lock Haven, Pennsylvania#Twentieth century. The source is Shieck, Paul J., and Cox, Harold E. (1978). West Branch Trolleys: Street Railways of Lycoming & Clinton Counties. Forty Fort, Pennsylvania: Harold E. Cox. Would this source be considered acceptable? If not, have you any suggestions about research methods or materials that might solve the problem? Thanks in advance for considering this question. Finetooth (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, welcome to the wild and wacky world of railroading. I believe my father owned that book (or if not, something dang close). What you'll want to do is find some reviews of the book in one of the railfan magazines. Or a listing in one of the railfan bibliographies. A couple of good reviews of this work or of other works by the same authors should help satisfy WP:SPS. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. This sort of treasure hunt is my idea of fun (if I end up finding the treasure). I'm on it. Thanks for the advice. Finetooth (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I wish I could help, but all of dad's books are still in boxes in the basement here and I have no idea where anything might be. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of my relatives rode on this particular trolley, but I'm afraid that statement is hearsay as well as personal research. All of the claims in the trolley book square with what I heard from my relatives, so I think there's a good chance I will find a review or bibliography that supports the book as reliable. We'll see. Finetooth (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(od) I wrote an article a couple of weeks back on Europe's worst railroad accident (Ciurea rail disaster). Sources were a biography about a British locomotive engineer, where one of his public lectures was quoted verbatim without comment, and a Google translation of the Romanian Wikipedia article on the same (which used a 30-year-old book as the sole source). The only other reference I could find was a blog entry from a Romanian railfan who visited the station, and found that the station master had never heard of it...Ning-ning (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It turns out (happily) that Harold E. Cox, the co-author and publisher, is the chair of the history department at Wilkes University, and that his private publishing firm has published many, many monographs about trolleys and electric cars. Macmillan, the publishing company, says of him here, "He is the former editor of 'Pennsylvania History' and has written extensively on the history of urban transportation and the development of inner cities in the nineteenth century. He has created historical maps for various publications since the early 1950s." I'm finding mention of his trolley books in lots of places. So I think I'm OK. Thanks again. Finetooth (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of railroad and trolley books are self-published and often very very reliable. It's one of those niche subjects that doesn't attract a lot of scholarly attention but has a huge fan following, so it's not unusual to find railroad histories published by the authors. Glad it worked out for you! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Short question, if you have the time

I heard that you are an expert on sourcing and had a quick one, if you don't mind being pestered ...

I was trying to use [[File:Lucas gusher.jpg]] in an article but found that the sourcing appears to incomplete. I managed to find a reliable source that published the same photo online attributing its the photo's ownership to another source but without any details. The photo itself is from 1901 (since this is when the event occurred). Is it the case that, regardless of when the photo was taken, it is the date that it was first made available to the public that counts as the date of publication? Or could the fact that we know from the indirect source that it was taken in 1901 be sufficient to prove that it is now in the public domain?

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You're better off asking one of the image folks, Awadewit or Nuclear Warfare or Jappalong that sort of question. TPS's? Anyone? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet

Can you put some sort of key for what should follow the numbers after each review area? I can't remember what it is, and am having trouble finding what to put. CTJF83 chat 21:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I found what I was looking for {{GAList/check|y}}, but it would be helpful for you to have a guide on here. CTJF83 chat 21:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh. You'll note it's in my userspace and it's really intended as a cheat sheet for myself, not as an essay or anything else for other people to use... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it is linked from Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, so it could be a guide for other reviewers. CTJF83 chat 22:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent dispute at Żydokomuna

Few months ago you passed this article as a GA. Currently it faces two major disputes: 1) proposed merger and 2) removal of a major section. Could you comment? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm... suggest you enlist Malleus, Geometry Guy and others by posting at the talk page for GAN. Quite honestly, my wiki time is going to be scarce for a bit, so not sure I have time to step into that snake pit right now. I personally have no problem with having an article on a term that is specific to Polish political life, but others may disagree. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Upper Pine Bottom State Park

	<font=3> Thanks again for your checking sources and external links - Upper Pine Bottom State Park made featured article today! Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source question

Hey there Ealdyth. Would you be able to comment here regarding http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-aContents.htm ? Regards, —Ed (talk • contribs) 03:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless the author is noted in the field, or you can turn up third party reliable sources using it, I'm inclined to say not reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you clicked the wikilink above, so just to doublecheck (...and not trying to insult if you did click it). Apparently the creator of the site and editor of the part I link to above published two books,[5], but Geoff Mason doesn't appear to have much online beyond this; I'm assuming that he published the bulk of his work—"Pennant Numbers", "Hydrographic Surveying" and "Salvage Work by HM Ships since 1945."—well before the internet age (he served in WWII and is 86+ now). All the best, —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not turning up anything naval related in World Cat by Geoff Mason. Lots of economic stuff, which may or may not be the same guy, but nothing naval. Here. Nor anything for Don Kindell. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't turn up anything for the site's creator, Gordon Smith, in worldcat, but I did find this: http: // stores.lulu.com/kin1947 Note that Wikipedia classifies that as a "spam link", so copy/paste and fix the slashes —Ed (talk • contribs) 22:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiki does that because Lulu.com is a vanity press and thus not reliable by itself, you'll have to go to WP:SPS to use anything published by lulu. Obviously, it then does nothing to help establish reliablity of a site/author/etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha okay, didn't realize that. :-) Many thanks for all of your help! —Ed (talk • contribs) 23:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I'd love to prove that site reliable, as it looks well done. I'm not trying to be mean here (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sly & The Family Stone

Hey! Sly is at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sly & the Family Stone/archive2 and trying for a save; would you have time to look over the refs? I checked the about.com, and the author in that case seems reliable. Thank you, dear ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, when you get a chance, can you look back in there re: there1.com? I thought there was a lot of there1.com, but you only questioned one. Is it an RS (I haven't looked). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hate to bother you again on this one, Kaliss' book is available on google books. Can you weigh in there re: the appropriateness of using the google book site? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

FAC

Hi Ealdgyth, 1997 Qayen earthquake is right about at the end of its FAC run, could you re-check the FAC? ceranthor 18:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, I think I've alleviated your concerns... it turns out there was a UN site story. That was an embarassing moment. :p ceranthor 14:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi Ealdgyth, I have an article (Sholes and Glidden typewriter) at peer review (here) and I was hoping you could review sourcing as if it were at FAC. Any other comments would be welcome too, of course! Thanks, Эlcobbola _talk 14:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the check. Эlcobbola _talk 16:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)