User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 8

Re:(snickers)

Thanks for that resource! I see some really big historians don't have articles yet (e.g. John Gillingham). Will try to address that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I also recently started my own ad hoc page for non-Scottish related stuff User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/Bibliography.Angus, Billreid and I were using Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland/Bibliography as a dumping ground for Scottish-related references (though ignoring linkings there). I do wonder if Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages should get a similar page. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Follow up to previous PR

Hi Ealdgyth. If you would like a break from force-feeding your poor horse medication, could you take a look at Battle_of_the_Alamo#Legacy? I've revamped this section per your comments at the previous peer review (that it essentially left out the Mexican perspective). I'm not sure if this is balanced enough yet, and I'd like your quick opinion. Feel free to ignore the rest of the article, and to postpone taking a look until any time of your convenience (I am in no hurry). Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks better this time, a bit more "balanced" than before. I think the only thing I can think of is if it's considered a "turning point" in Mexico, and if so, why? I'd think if it discredited Santa Ana, it'd be considered a turning point, if not politically. I know that it's usually considered to be an inspirational turning point in Texas history, even if it was basically militarily a non-starter. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Original Barnstar
		For contributing to the Banker horse article. It has been such a great learning experience, and I was so lucky to have editors like you help me along the way. Thanks for making redirect pages, answering questions and and for keeping me on the right paths. Your work certainly didn't go unnoticed. --Yohmom (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

--Yohmom (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

When they appoint me Ruler of Wikipedia, I'm going to ban citation templates. I swear it would be easier to manually type the whole thing out each time. Serve me right for using the RefTools gadget and thinking it might actually output them in a correct and standardized form… – iridescent 18:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Your problem was two-fold. One - you had one {{citation}} template mixed in with the rest of the {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}, which will get inconsistent results. Two - you were mixing up pp. (from the cite templates) and page for your abbreviation for pages. I know how much you LOVE MOS stuff, so just took the liberty of fixing it for you since it's a small article. No biggie. Hope the article does well! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Gilbert Foliot

On January 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gilbert Foliot, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Robert de Bethune

On January 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert de Bethune, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Epikleros

What a tangled web we weave when once we ... try to research the Epikleros :)

Hi Ealdgyth, Happy New Year! Just to update you on my progress wrt Epikleros, I'm still in phase one—"read everything I can possibly get my hands on" ! So far I've got through all the references in the current version, ~150 articles on JSTOR which mention epikleros, ~350 articles on Google Scholar, (which includes most of the JSTOR references), and have a dozen books on my desk waiting for me to give them some attention. I've then got another dozen or so books to get from the library, plus ~350 references on Google Books to check to see if there's anything interesting which didn't get picked up by Google Scholar! To keep track of who cites or disagrees with whom I've been keeping a file which I run through Graphviz to produce diagrams of the sort at the right, which I reproduce here for your general edification and amusement. Hopefully it won't be too much longer before I can move on to phase two—actually writing something! I'll then run it by you and as many others as possible to get it ready for FAC. Dr pda (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL.. and my system is totally different. I pick up a book, put all the interesting bits in the article, pick up another book, do the same, piling the article up bit by bit. I find it fascinating how folks all take different paths to the same goal. Glad to know it's still being worked on. I've gotten sucked into helping Mike Christie with Bede... so that's taking some time as well as the usual medieval bishop or five... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Using The A.V. Club as a source?

I'm using The A.V. Club as a source for an article. User:Laser brain mentioned on the peer review for Outliers (book) that it might not be considered reliable because of its connection to The Onion, but you accepted it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maynard James Keenan. Can I use it? Gary King (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that The Onion is the satirical publication, and that the others are "serious". Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Source check

Hey, I started a PR for "These Are the Voyages..." and was wondering if you could check off the sources and comment on the talk page whenever you aren't improving our coverage of random English bish #132. :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Will look in the next few days... And no, I haven't been editing a bishop! Pipe rolls for the win! Ealdgyth - Talk 05:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pipe rolls

Hello! Your submission of Pipe rolls 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! Lampman (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know question

Hello! Your submission of Pipe rolls 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! Art LaPella (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Life section

What do you think of the Life section as it stands now? If you think that's an improvement, then maybe we just pick the next section to attack, dump some facts in and work on that section till it's cleaner, then do all the sections that way. At the end we can look back and see what the whole thing looks like. Mike Christie (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I don't think I have much else to add to the Life section, we really don't know that much about his life. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Then I vote we skip the intro section of "Works" for now, and go straight to the Historia Ecclesiastica section. I have ordered a copy of World of Bede but it will take a while to get here; still, I'm happy to take a turn at doing the first pass if you like. Or do you prefer to do the first pass? Mike Christie (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and make a pass. My brain is still fried from expanding Pipe rolls, and I've got a headache. Maybe tomorrow I'll make a pass during the day. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It'll be tomorrow night at the earliest; I'm going out in a bit and won't be doing much more tonight (up at 3:30 to catch a plane this morning). Sorry about the headache. I saw a note in the paper that Illinois had record low temperatures (-37 C?) in the last few days; did that reach you? Anyway, get better and talk to you tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

All Hands and USS Iowa

The Library is official opened in all respects today, so I hope to be able to fill the blanks you asked about over at the FAC for USS Iowa. I thought you might like to know. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Horses in warfare

I reverted Una's edits (I'm sure it will become a battle). I inadvertently reverted just your edit the first time. Sorry about that, I didn't mean to. It was a mistake. - Josette (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I figured out what was up. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Drawing a Bede

I am done for the night on Mr. B, I think. If you can stand my slow pace, we can just wait till I'm through this section and then you can make a clean up pass after me, and then it will be your turn for the next section. I have my family joining me in NY Friday and Saturday so I won't get much done then; I hope to make progress tomorrow and Sunday.

Re your new toy, is there any Anglo-Norman equivalent of the PASE? That's a terrific resource; if it only existed in book form my eye teeth would be on their way to a book dealer now in exchange for the printed version. Mike Christie (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My new toy IS the Anglo-Norman PASE, basically. It lists the charters/writs/etc that a given individual is listed on, as well as giving known biographical facts about the person. So Nigel's entry is: "Episcopus Eliensis, Nigel - Nephew of Roger, bishop of Salisbury (1107-39). Chaplain to Henry I c. 1112-20. Elected bishop of Ely 28 May and consecrated in October 1133. Died 30 May 1169. Father of Richard fitzNigel, treasurer to Henry II and bishop of London from 1189 until his death on 10 September 1198." then it lists a LONG list of published charters/writs/etc which he is on. Very handy, especially for obscure folks. Doesn't give any bits of the documents, but lists where they are published. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, and the speed on Bede is fine. I broke open Wilfrid today.. blech. Still shepherding Pipe rolls, and working on Ealdred, archbishop of York too. And packing. Blech. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I figured your new toy was like PASE; I was really wondering if any part of it were online anywhere. The guys who put PASE on the web could probably release the framework so others could use it to do a prosopography of any period.

On a different subject, would you take a look at an essay I just wrote? It's been brewing for a bit and I'd like an honest opinion -- i.e. is it interesting? worth reading? amusing? If none of the above, please say so. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a good essay, but you're preaching to the choir here (I think someone accused me once of citing my talk page comments, which I've never done!). I wish more folks worried about showing where they got their information, or took making finding their sources easy. I wish more folks thought about some of the sources they DO use, some of the things I see at FAC scare me, people have so little ability to judge sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're already one of the saved, that's true. Thanks for the feedback; I'll put it on my user page and see if anyone notices. Mike Christie (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

A note of thanks

I just wanted to drop you a note to say how much I value your work at FAC. It makes my work so much easier when I know someone has already scrutinized sources and I can focus on prose. If you ever decide to stop doing those review, be sure to give me a heads-up so I know to look more closely at sources. --Laser brain (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Nigel notes

I've been working on some notes for the FAC, but I am unlikely to get much further till Sunday since I have my family in town for househunting. If you want to take a look at the notes I have, they're at User:Mike Christie/Sandbox2; I will get back to it Sunday (probably) if you'd rather just wait. Mike Christie (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on it as I find time. Movers here Tuesday, we'll see how the move of the internet goes...Ealdgyth - Talk 02:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In Utero FAC

The chart citations missing publishing details have be replaced or removed, as noted at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/In Utero. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Pipe rolls

On January 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pipe rolls, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Boyce

I took out the IllinoisReview ref so you can strike that one. The waymarking one has a picture of the plaque, proving it's there, pllus this show the campuse is named after him but doesn't mention the plaque. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Already struck the one resolved, and left the picture one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. You're all done from me! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 03

01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Preemptive source check

Could you check the sources on Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country and leave a note on the talk page if anything's amiss, whenever you have time? Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Caledonia to Pictland

It has lots to say about both Bede and Wilfrid. I haven't finished reading it yet, but enough has come up already and Fraser is a hard-core specialist on historical texts. Prolly you and Mike will get by without it, and I have it and undoubtedly Angus will acquire it also. I put it in the further reading section mainly, in fact, so I could move it up if I added anything from it. :) All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

FAC comments addressed...

I think we've addressed all your concerns in the West Point FAC. If you would be so kind as to mark off everything you feel we have addressed and/or make further comments so we can fix them, it would be appreciated. Furthermore, if all of your concerns have been addressed, your Support !vote would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, how 'bout now? — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

?? — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Now? — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL.

		The Modest Barnstar
		Okay, you were a pain in the ass, but the encyclopedia is better for it, so who am I to complain? As a matter of fact, here's a modest pat on the head for a job well done. Thanks for helping with the review. — BQZip01 — talk 01:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't a pat on the back more appropriate than on the head? :O Gary King (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Did you mean for "Test" everywhere? Yes, that's the standard in cricket texts. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I think you have me confused with another reviewer.. I don't recall questioning the capitalization... (I tend to overcapitalize myself). Ealdgyth - Talk 02:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, read the review. Clarified there. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Move

Hope the move goes well, and the movers don't break anything. Good luck with the ISP, and everything else too. Mike Christie (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Boy, I know the feeling about boxes. I'm moving to New York this summer, and am commuting from Texas till then; I have been going down there with an empty suitcase and coming back up with a suitcase full of reference books. By the time the move comes around I should have most of my critical books already up here, thus cheating the boxes of their prey.

If you think we can ignore Goffart for now, I'll take your word for it. I think the way Bede is going to go is an article-based pass with the major sources (World of Bede, Blackwell Enc., ODNB, editions of HE) and getting the structure right, followed by a pass through each other source in turn, dumping tidbits into the article. Then a coherence and clean up pass, stripping bits to go to subarticles, and finally a copyedit. Once we have the first pass done, so that the body of the article feels right and the extra sources are just adding info, I think we'll feel like we're making a lot of progress. Mike Christie (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me. The Bede the Venable I just got will be a help on the works, it covers most of his works in a "basic" form. Goffart's more a monograph, he's arguing a particular interpretation, whereas the BtV seems to be a basic handbook type thing for students in the upper levels of undergrad/beginning grad studies. More an overview. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess if you can read this, your internet connection is back. Hope things are going smoothly. A quick status on Bede: I think I've added everything related to HE that I can see from the Penguin Bede, and pretty much everything from the Blackwell Encyclopedia. I am travelling from this evening through late Wednesday, and won't have anything with me except the ODNB article. I'll see what more can be added from that, but in the meantime I think we can either move on to the next section or you can go through what's been done on HE and see what reorg or copyediting is needed. If you want to move on, a natural next step would be to start on one of the other "works" sections. I think we should leave the first paragraphs of "Work" till we've done the subsections; it's basically a lead for that section and so is probably best done last.

I'll keep going from the ODNB till I get back to NY. I should have decent net access from everywhere but am flying Monday afternoon and Tuesday and Wednesday evenings so won't have a whole lot of time online. Mike Christie (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Wulfsige Bishop of Cornwall

Not sure I understood your post ... I went and moved the article to Wulfsige (Bishop of Cornwall), though not sure if that's what you wanted. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The i and the f were in the wrong place, rendering Wulfisge; I think that was the only reason for his move, though he also changed the format and left out a comma between Wulfsige and Bishop. :) All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

William the Conqueror's Birthdate

Hi. I noticed that you recently reverted an edit to the article William I of England made by User:80.65.240.27, replacing the date "1028" and restoring {{Birth date|1027|11|8|df=y}}. It seems to me that there are a couple of problems with this date.

Firstly, the more "precise" (not necessarily "accurate") date and template seem to have been added without attribution by User:189.228.4.84 about two weeks ago. (I can't be certain that this is the first place it shows up, because I don't know any practicable way to search the entire article history.)

Secondly, it looks a bit to me like this particular anon stuck us with a case of Introducing deliberate factual errors, since I can find no mention of that date elsewhere. If the individual in question has a source, it needs to be brought into evidence.

Finally, it may be worth noting in passing that the instructions for the {{Birth date}} template state: "Do NOT use this template when the person's exact date of birth is disputed or unknown." I think that such is the case here. People keep substituting "1027" for "1028" as well, which might be accurate, but is also apparently unsourced. If somebody has a favorite historian to attribute here, why not source it? But, as to why people think that they know more than Queen Elizabeth II and her genealogists at the College of Arms, that is a little beyond me. Wouldn't "abt. 1028" be the safest date to include in Wikipedia?

I ask myself, "Why care?" This article is such a churn of vandalism and unreliable editing that trying to fix it seems like pasting a yellow sticky note on an albatross. But I noticed that you seem indeed to care, and also to know a lot. So, I thought I'd run this by you.

—Ziusudra (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to dig out a reliable source for his birthdate in the next few days and actually source the thing, so that hopefully we can keep this stupid fact tied down and be able to figure out what's vandalism and what's not. It's very hard to figure out where what came from on that article, and I'll admit it's sometimes easier to just revert. Unfortunately, I just moved so finding the appropriate reliable source (Douglas' William the Conqueror and Bates' William the Conqueror) will take a little bit of time... I believe that neither Bates nor Douglas ever pinned themselves down to a year, much less a date, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done. Thanks. —Ziusudra (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Byron Brown

I was awaiting your feedback at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Byron_Brown.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Bishops of Hereford

I've moved List of the Bishops of the Diocese of Hereford, England and its precursor offices to List of Bishops of Hereford since there haven't been any precursor offices beforehand. I was checking through pages with the old name and changed to the new one. In the process I found one your userpage with the old name and took the liberty changing it to the new one. I'm sure you wouldn't mind. Scrivener-uki (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a all, thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

query

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Military Academy is practically indecipherable; does it have source clearance? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It does, although Ealdgyth's hidey template is hard to make out in that mess... Dabomb87 (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It does. I cleared it a while back, but I don't blame you for not figuring it out... wow, it's quite the mess now. (As is my usual practice, I unwatchlisted when I cleared it.. so hadn't seen it in a bit...) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; yes, it's quite a mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Hi, I realise you must get hundreds of these questions, but that is what you get for being so good with sources! :p Basically I am preparing Premiere (The O.C.) for FAC. Way back in August you questioned the reliability of seeing-stars.com at the first peer review. Gary King has questioned it again at the current second peer review. When I tried to assert its reliability Gary said it should be good enough, but I thought I'd ask you as you are the expert, and I am sure this will get brought up at FAC. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm less convinced, I strongly suggest taking it to the WP:RSN, and seeing what others say. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok I have requested more input there. Thanks for the advice. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ravenloft (module)

Hello! I am notifying you that a article you previously reviewed for FAC has been nominated again. Please, if you can, take the time to see if the article has been improved enough to consider supporting, and if not, let us know what needs improving. :) BOZ (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The Chaser APEC pranks

Hey, may I as if you would check The Chaser APEC pranks again, to see if your comments on the fac nomination page, have been addressed. And maybe leave a comment on the fac page, if there are any issues. Thankyou very much,  The Windler talk  08:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Para Siempre images

Yes, it's taken care of. Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

2009 Orange Bowl GA

Changes have been made as you requested. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

USMA FAC question (s)

Hi. I would like to ask your opinion on this image: File:LTG F.L.Hagenbeck Feb 2008.png. I removed the image of LTG Hagenbeck that was in question because there didn't seem to be agreement that it was PD. The above image is a low-resolution capture from the local post newspaper, dated 22 Feb 2008. The link to the source is provided as well. There is no author credited in the newspaper, so it is attributed to the Public Affairs Office. Do you think that this meets the PD criteria and can put this dispute to rest? I apologize for my ignorance, I'm still learning. Also, even for a rookie such as myself, I can see that this FAC has gotten nasty and personal at times. For that, I'm truly sorry. Thanks for your feedback when you get the chance.  Ahodges7   ^talk 18:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly? I am not an image expert. Ask Jappalong or Ecclobba. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Who is this Ecclobba? Sounds like a drunk with nice shoes... ;P Эlcobbola _talk 20:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(ducks) I cannot spell, I never could... sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If it helps (and it may come in handy if you find yourself on Jeopardy!): in Italian, a one-stanza canzone is called a "cobbola". Эlcobbola _talk 20:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Regalian right

On February 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Regalian right, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 07:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Tee hee

You said you wanted to work in main space more, hm? :) I'm in the early-ish stages of trying to bring musical instrument to FA quality. Could you take a look-see at the way I'm using citations and tell me if I'm doing something wrong before I get too far into it? I'd like your opinion on Sachs as well. His book is from 1940, but it's still considered the definitive reference for the history of musical instruments. Is it too old? I will be working in modern updates to his research as I find them, but the history and classification sections will be based largely on his work.

I've been working only in Archaeology and History sections up until now. The rest is woefully neglected. --Laser brain (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey.. don't mean to bug you but I wasn't sure if you saw my question. If you did, I'm an annoying dweebie. --Laser brain (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw it and promptly forgot it. Oops. Sorry. I plead we just moved in and I'm trying to get organized enough to see the boxes of books ... not unpack them, just be able to see them so I can upack them later... Will look now.Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll settle for being an annoying dweebie. No hurry whatsoever, and thanks again for all you do around here.--Laser brain (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

WrestleView.com

Hi Ealdgyth, on your FAC cheatsheet you have WrestleView listed as a reliable sourced under wrestling, which you found reliable sometime back in late-2008. In the FAC of Lockdown (2008), a reviewer question its reliability. Since this site reports rumors and other general news but has an established source of writers and fact checking system, I assume. Is it reliable for those news/rumors? Or is only reliable for like results from television and pay-per-view programming? Thanks, if you can reply.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 04:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, this stems from a discussion I initiated. I'm not pushing for it to be considered a reliable source for rumors (does such a thing even exist?), but rather for information about wrestling history (eg http://www.wrestleview.com/faq/). GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The consensus back then was it was reliable for non-controversial information. If it was reporting information that was contentious, I might not use it, but for results/history, etc. it is probably okay enough. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Using a blog to reference information on illegal online activity?

I think this is a more interesting question than most. I'm curious as to what you think about TorrentFreak (it has an article at TorrentFreak), which I'm considering using as a reference in a number of articles. It is a self-published blog dedicated to online filesharing, and gives a strong focus on reporting information regarding illegal online activity, like transferring movies online and such. The website is definitely one of the most, if not the most, popular websites dedicated to illegal online filesharing, but because of its nature, I don't think it can really ever be considered a "professional" website—but the website's writers are certainly "experts" in their field. There are hundreds of reliable sources that reference the website; about 156 on Google News, and a few on Google Books. "Scene stealer: The aXXo files" is a particularly good article that mentions the website several times. Thoughts? Gary King (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a tough one. In all honestly, I"m not sure we shoudl be linking to sites that promote copyright infringement, or discuss it. That's a totally separate concern from the concern of if its a reliable source. For the RS issue, it might pass muster if you were careful to always attribute it, like "According to posts on (blah) ..." , or similar. Even then, I'd probably call attention to it at FAC and leave it out for others to think about for themselves. As for the copyright issue, I'm not enough of an expert on WP's policies on that, you might ask on one of the specialized boards that deal with copyright. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The site doesn't share copyright material, just discuss it. In particular, they have a lot of interviews with people in the industry—not just people who trade software online, but also with people who work for government agencies and organizations like the MPAA and RIAA who are charged with preventing piracy, so those can be very useful. A lot of the material is similar to the article I linked above, which is from the reliable The Independent. Also, I don't plan to include it in just any article; I'd like to use it in articles such as aXXo and The Pirate Bay, both which are about software piracy, so TorrentFreak is very relevant in these cases. I'll post at WP:RSN about this, too. Gary King (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Gascon Rolls

Having got distracted by the discussion about obits above, on to what I really came here for. I thought this about a partnership between The National Archives, and Oxford and Liverpool Universities to put the Gascon Rolls online might interest you if you weren't already aware of it. David Underdown (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool! A bit later than my normal time period, but very cool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oxford Seasons

Thanks for the comment. I don't know why FCHD is a reliable source, but the first two seasons articles that are FLC that i have just looked at (York and Gillingham) both included it. Rage Online isn't reliale and i will try to phase that out with TwentiethApril's help. Eddie6705 (talk)#

date this so it archives Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

date this so it archives Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Quiriguá GAN

Hi Ealdgyth,

Thanks for looking at the Quiriguá article. I believe I've addressed all the concerns you've raised on the review page, please let me know if it needs further tweaking. I've commented on the review page itself. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Passed it this morning, looks nice! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		To Ealdgyth, for making my first GA nom a fairly painless experience...thank you! Simon Burchell (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Regalia

Droit de régale and regalian right overlap. Do you think the latter should become an Anglocentric detailed article hanging off the former? Probably droit de régale needs plenty of updating work, so I'm not suggesting a merge as the solution in the first instance. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The first sounds like a good compormise. I'm still trying to get a hold of Howell's Regalian Right, which I suspect is anglocentric, but not sure. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Obituaries as sources

Hello, what are your thoughts about obituaries being used extensively as sources? I just reviewed Sebastian Shaw and noted that his obit is used heavily. Can they be considered neutral? Don't publicists and such write celebrity obituaries? --Laser brain (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I know most "normal" people's obits are written by the family, so I'd guess it'd be the same for whatever is written on the actual obit page. Now, a news story of the death of someone, such as Katherine Hepburn, would be more reliable, since it'd be a news story. I'd be leery of anything on the "obit" pages of a newspaper. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm, okay. I guess I will have to dig up that story and find out if it was written by a journalist at the newspaper or a Shaw publicist. --Laser brain (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Most obituaries actually on the obituary page are paid advertisements, essentially, and shouldn't be used as sources. If it's in another part of the newspaper, even without a byline, I usually allow it. Karanacs (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a great strategy. Thanks for the feedback! --Laser brain (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I have talk page stalkers! I agree with Karan, btw... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is a UK/US difference, but I believe that for the most part the big UK papers write the obits themselves. Telegraph and Times don't byline theirs, but I understand they are by staff reporters, and have standard editorial oversight, but in The Guardian the proper obits are bylined and are either by staff reporters, or by commissioned experts. For example the Guardian's obit of Henry Chadwick (theologian) was by Rowan Williams, who is of course the current Archbishop of Canterbury, and also has a pretty distinguished pedigree as an academic theologian himself. The one exception to this would be The Guardian's "Other Lives" obits which are for less high-profile people, and are contibuted by family and friends. Note also that obits are frequently used as sources by ODNB (see for example http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/70774 on Harry Tuzo), so if it's good enough for them, why shouldn't it be for us? Many Telegraph obits are periodically published in themed volumes in book form, as here for example, the author, Hugh Montgomery-Massingberd, of this particular volume is described in the Amazon material as "former obituaries editor of the Daily Telegraph" David Underdown (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see using an "obit" page obit if it has a byline, that might be a good exception. Keep in mind that most folks in the US have an obit of some kind listed in the papers, even if it's just a three line notice of a funeral, so you can usually find an obit for a good three-quarters of the population. And almost all of those will be written by either the funeral home or the family. Sometimes its from the death certificate, but in most localities in the US the information on the death certificate comes direct from the family, and is often wrong on information tangential to the death. (I.e. the parents names for older folks, etc.) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So as I said, a UK/US difference, the obits published in the (former) broadsheets in the UK are substantial works of journalism, only two or three are carried each day generally. The Times and Telegraph do also carry notices of the kind you refer to, but they wouldn't normally be called obituaries. As I say, ODNB articles for twentieth century figures often include obits in their references, so if we rely on an ODNB ref, we can be relying on something from an obit at secondhand (of course the ODNB doesn't include people unti they've been dead five years or so, so there has been a bit of time to sort the wheat from the chaff I suppose), so if we have access to the original obit as well, it seems a bit daft not to include that as a reference too. Unfortunately, Times and Telegraph seem not to give bylines on obits as a matter of policy. I know my father-in-law has a volume or two of the books, so next time I'm up there, I'll try to have a look to see if it gives anymore clues on the process in there. I've been searching through their websites without much success today. David Underdown (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent) I realised that we actually had some of the Telegraph volumes in my work library. The foreword does indeed explain the setup, there is an in-house team of writers, supplemented by freelance experts on particular topics. A fair degree of research seems to be expected (and there was a rather gleeful note about a couple of occasions where The Times had been taken in by fraudsters). Likewise I foudn we had some collected volumes of Times obits too, the process there is (or was) similar, according to a foreword by former editor, William Rees-Mogg. Their policy is to keep contributors anonymous to protect information given in confidence.

So in summary, Guardian obits have a bylined author who can often be an expert in a relevant field (apart from the "Other Lives" series, wehre credit is given, but the piece is contributed by a friend or family member, these tend to start "My father..." or "My friend ..." so are fairly easily distinguishable). Times and Telegraph are actually the same, but for policy reasons do not publish the author's name. There doesn't seem to be any reason though to regard obits as inherently less reliable than other information published in those papers, except for those published as "Other lives".

One final paper which probably falls in to the same category is The Independent, which I'd previously forgotten about. Again these are bylined (at the end of the obit), and similarly seem to be written in-house or by experts on a freelance basis, such as this recent one by David McKittrick. David Underdown (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2008 World Series of Poker results

Hey there ealdgyth, MatthewEdwards suggested that I contact you, he has some questions about the formatting of some of the references on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2008 World Series of Poker results, and indicated that this is an area you are strong in. Could you take a look at his concerns and let us know what you think?---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 16:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Harrison FAC

I've answered all the issues on refs now, but one "what to do" with one is left as a photo of the inauguration speech, hand-written, is hard to read. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I used the bartleby one plus the one with the actual images. I don't see your issue with Martin Kelly ref...you'd take his book but not his web site? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it just a reprint of his book on the site? I'll confess I didn't quite understand what you were saying and I'm up to my eyeballs in Bede. Brain cells here are all in medieval Europe... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

See response there at FAC. Added book as ref. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Backlash (2006)

I was wondering what would prove Online World of Wrestling reliable? I tried looking at some wrestling sites you consider reliable but that wasn't much help (you said PW Torch is OK, but the FAC you cited didn't mention the site). What would I have to show to prove that it is reliable? TJ Spyke 02:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is their page on wanting to become a contributor to their site: http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/oww/researcher-faq/ Do you want more? TJ Spyke 02:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not going to be enough, honestly. You need to show that they fact check AND that they are regarded as reliable by third-party press, that's the best method. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Third party sites using it: [1], [2], [3] (that one is a little shaky, but Amazon includes a quote from OWOW's review of the book). I am working on how to show they fact check (though I don't know how, other than maybe e-mailing its webmaster), but it does make fixes when wrestlers got them. They even removed Stacy Carter's name from her article at her request (they originally removed her entire profile[4]). TJ Spyke 03:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It'd be better if the sites using it were considered reliable themselves. Even better would be something like a newspaper, etc. using it as a souce. I'm still not convinced here. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Amazon Canada isn't reliable? Wrestling Observer (now called f4online) is one of the most reliable wrestling sites, ECW Press appears to be a somewhat notable small publishing company. TJ Spyke 04:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Urse d'Abetot

On February 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Urse d'Abetot, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Johnston in 1948

Thanks for that, I've replied. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Err, well, in terms of improving efficiency, I nominated a pile of sister articles on the same topic with the same structure, so it might be efficient for the GAC backlog if you reviewed a pile of them, as you already reviewed two of them, especially as you might already be in the swing of things with the subject matter and all that. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I can only read SO much cricket stuff. I'm a yank. Cricket is like ... reading Russian novelists. I'll try to get a few more as I go along, but I wanna read about something besides just cricket! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Americans pick up ambiguities in the articles more effectively...also the article used the same technique and structure, the sections are all named the same, the last section always has a data analysis and graph....YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

ROFL. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fair dinkum. People who don't know the subject matter will pick up ambiguities while those who do will simply unconsciously get the intended meaning whether it was written properly or not. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to look at one tomorrow. I'm trying for one GA review a day, any more than that and my brain turns to mush and I get nothing done on my own articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed up Lindwall I think. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

got him passed. I'll do a non-cricket article tomorrow... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think the big jargon wikilinking run on all the articles would have helped YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ælfheah of Canterbury - place of birth?

Hi, Can I pick your brains (or your reference sources) again. Do you have a reference for the place of birth of Ælfheah of Canterbury? Jacob Rees-Mogg has named his son Alphege claiming he was born in his constituency, which other have claimed was untrue & it has made the media in the UK. One or two editors keep reinserting and deleting each others edits on this issue. Any help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 18:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing I have lists a birth place. Not sure how or why that got inserted or left in.. it's been a while since I worked on him, I'll admit. It's not in the new ODNB, or the old DNB, or in the 1911 Britannica or in the Catholic Encyclopedia. It might be in one of his Lives but those are very unreliable. I pruned the info out since it can't be sourced. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking.— Rod ^talk 20:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Chronicon Abbatiae de Evesham

On February 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chronicon Abbatiae de Evesham, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 03:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Boniface of Savoy (archbishop)

Promoted, Good work! Lampman (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Æthelwig

On February 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Æthelwig, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Rhys ap Rhydderch

On February 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rhys ap Rhydderch, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

New England Quarter

Hi Ealdgyth. Many thanks for your Good Article review of this article. I think I've addressed all the points you raised; see my comments on the review page. I have provided diffs in some cases to clarify changes I've made. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pass. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Walter of Albano

On February 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Walter of Albano, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

FAC

Hi, as someone who previously commented on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Wilkes Booth, you may wish to revisit this page, as the FAC has been restarted and additional content to meet the concerns expressed has been added.  JGHowes  ^talk 23:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

WT:WIAFA

• A million thanks for your awesome and essential reviewing of sources! Would you like another barnstar?
• I noted your comments on Booth: "As a side note, if FAs had to pass my personal standards of sourcing, most articles on non-scholarly subjects would not pass." I started a new thread at WT:WIAFA (your input is hereby solicited). If anything happens (which I doubt; no one ever lets the standards be improved, for obvious reasons) then you can say that your source review meets the standard of RS but not necessarily the new clause at WIAFA Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't need another barnstar (laughs) I need the weather to warm up here so I can get my bookcases stained so I can get them dry so I can get my books out of BOXES! As for sourcing, I'd love to see it tightened up, but I don't think it'll fly. My brain is sunk in the Middle Ages though, so I'll comment tomorrow. Only reason I'm still out on the computer is the SO is in the bedroom watching Battlestar Galactica on DVD, and I'm so far behind on the episodes, I'd just be lost if I went in and watched. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The new BG? Some of those female chars are hot. Don't tell my wife I said so. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I am about halfway through the first season. He's in there watching the fourth. I'd be soooo lost... Somehow, WP takes up my TV time... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

But count yourself lucky to have access to English-language TV. I get CNN, three or four ultra-lame movie channels, and.. uh.. Animal Planet or somesuch. I only know about BG because of the DVD version of Battlestar Galactica: Razor.Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh. When SO and I visited Eastern Europe in 2006, we got stuck in a Slovenian hotel up in the Alps, with no AC and a heat wave. Trying desperately to find something to put us to sleep on the TV, we found, believe it or not, a dubbed version of Where Eagles Dare. Very very odd. Even odder when the next days activities included riding a cable car up to the top of a mountain! Asia was the worst for non-English TV, honestly. South America was not too great either, come to think of it. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I will always remember my trips to Pakistan for (amongst a few other things) the tedious reporting of a lot of people walking around some covered up big stone somewhere or other. That and the ... probably said too much already. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Always and everywhere on Wikipedia, the people in favor of lower standards outnumber those in favor of higher ones. Numbers are somehow associated with mandate. If you could weigh in at WT:WIAFA, then that'd be great. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hilary of Chichester

I'm back and have a lot to catch-up on. I gave my comments on the talk page. I see there are discussions about raising WIAFA standards. I think that must be even harder than commenting on MOS! --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hamence in 1948 GAN

Thanks again for the review, I've respondend. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

McCool in 1948

ditto for McCool. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Bride of Frankenstein FAC

Would you mind swinging back through the FAC and stating whether you support the promotion or not, and if not, what issues you would like to see addressed? The FAC is kind of at a standstill. Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the other FACs up, you'll see that I've been investigating all the candidates sources, not just yours. While I'd love to have time to devote to every candidate and do a full review of the prose and other aspects, I just don't have the time. It has been a failing of FAs for a while that no one was investigating the sources and commenting on the reliablity or non-reliability of them for quite a while, and I've tried to step up and help with that. Others at FAC specialize in other areas, User:Tony1 does MOS issues and prose, User:Elcobbola does a lot of work on pictures and fair use. I put my comments under "comments" so that folks don't think that I've done a full review, and I won't support or oppose unless I have time to do a full review of everything in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Idlewild Park

Ealdgyth, I have addressed your concerns for the FAC of Idlewild Park. Perhaps you will take another look. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 03:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the other FACs up, you'll see that I've been investigating all the candidates sources, not just yours. While I'd love to have time to devote to every candidate and do a full review of the prose and other aspects, I just don't have the time. It has been a failing of FAs for a while that no one was investigating the sources and commenting on the reliablity or non-reliability of them for quite a while, and I've tried to step up and help with that. Others at FAC specialize in other areas, User:Tony1 does MOS issues and prose, User:Elcobbola does a lot of work on pictures and fair use. I put my comments under "comments" so that folks don't think that I've done a full review, and I won't support or oppose unless I have time to do a full review of everything in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Userbox for GA reviews

The userbox {{User Good Articles reviewed}} has been updated so that it can now link to a page in your user subspace where you keep track of all your GA reviews, if you have such a page. This can be done by adding a | and then the name of your user subpage (or subsection of your regular user page) wherever you have the template called. For example, on my user page I am using

{{User Good Articles reviewed|6|User:Rjanag/GA reviews}}

which displays as

This user has reviewed 6 Good Article nominations on Wikipedia.

There is more information on how to do this at Template:User Good Articles reviewed.

Note: If you are not interested in doing this, you don't have to do anything; the template will still work for you exactly as it does now.

Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3

	<font=3> Thanks again for your reference check - Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3 made featured article today! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review

I would like you to peer review the Spokane, Washington article if you can. Tell me if you are interested so I can stop looking for reviewers. Anon134 (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Im taking your lack of a response to mean you dont want to review it. Thanks anyway. Anon134 (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Theology of Zwingli

I think I have finished. Could you take a look at the GA review? --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Geoffrey, Archbishop of York

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Geoffrey, Archbishop of York you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. MarquisCostello (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have made some comments on the review subpage, and have put the article on hold while you have a look at them.Cheers, MarquisCostello (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fedor Emelianenko

I invite you to add another comment to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fedor Emelianenko as to whether the use of the flag icons in this article is appropriate or not. Discussion at the articles related WikiProject did not provide consensus because, I believe, the editors involved are not a unbiased party. During the nomination, the flags were removed and then readded to the article. So your participation at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fedor Emelianenko do establish whether the icons should stay or go is needed. Regards, — Moe ε 22:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Hugh de Mapenor

On February 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hugh de Mapenor, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

M249 squad automatic weapon

Hey :) Dizzy trying to catch up <sigh>. I can't decipher the sourcing status at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/M249 squad automatic weapon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I missed it when it came through. Looks like it's okay, but there are MOS issues with the citations (the sources aren't in alphabetical order, etc.). I'm not sure they ever addressed my query about current ref 35 "fnmfg.com" is ... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ealdgyth; do you have time to mention those items on the FAC page? I've got so much to get through ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dreadnought? Lordy, it goes on forever; possibly, source review is there and I just missed it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that Ling covered it in his review (at least he certainly got what I could see...) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks ... wasn't sure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hugh Nonant

The article meets the GA criteria and has passed! Keep up the great work! ItsLassieTime (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Robert of Melun

On February 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert of Melun, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

GAN of Diocletianic Persecution

I've replied to your initial comments. Thank you so much for the review! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 10:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm done! I think I've addressed all of your concerns. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Leges Henrici Primi

On February 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Leges Henrici Primi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Canterbury-York dispute

On February 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Canterbury-York dispute, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Humphrey Stafford, 1st Earl of Devon

Dang, that was quick! This all looks reasonable, I'll get on it soon. Thanks for the link by the way, I wasn't aware of that site. I was actually not quite comfortable with using the old version of the CP. Lampman (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, care to have another look? Lampman (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I reviewed your article Hervey le Breton, and did some copyediting. Lampman (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the promotion! Yours is also good to go now. Lampman (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Foliot

On February 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Foliot, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Horse

Please don't think that I am being rude, but I would like to know why not? If I was to put creationism throughout the whole article, would it be kept in?--God'sGirl94 (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It would not, because the information on the evolution is from reliable sources and is all cited. Removing that and replacing it with creationism, would be against wikipedia policies and would be considered disruptive. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I explained abit more at your talk page. I have written a substantial part of the evolution section of that page, and I can explain more if you like. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick source question

Hi, Eladgyth. Quick question about a source: is this reliable? I'm leaning towards no, but I can't say for certain. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no, but I suspect it's a press release/wire feed and you may find the exact same story on another more reliable web site. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Hugh Foliot

On February 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hugh Foliot, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Conan the Bishop

Hi, you created both Conan of Cornwall and Conan (bishop), whish appear to be about the same person. I've suggested merger on those pages and would do it myself, but thought that as you clearly know a lot more about the subject than I do it would be best to invite you to do it. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Bede mss

Plummer arrived a couple of days ago, 113 years old and with a spine that began to disintegrate as I read it, staining the shirt I was wearing. Looks great, though; and now I have a second source for the mss I am going to take a bit of time and collate everything I can find in Colgrave and Plummer on the Bede HE mss. I've started work on an Excel spreadsheet of the mss. and will see how that goes -- ideally I'll end up with a tree diagram assembling all the known relationships. In the meantime, I may be off Wiki for Bede for a while -- this could easily take weeks even if I weren't going to be away from my books for about ten days. I'm in Texas starting Thursday night, then Florida, then Texas before I get back to NY on about 3/8. I am also probably going to try to knock out another Mercian king or two in the next month, so it may be a bit before I get back to Bede. I did create List of works by Bede, as you probably saw; there's not much there yet and I think I need to do the ms. work first. By the way, congrats on continuing to produce ecclesiastical FAs; are you planning on doing every Archbishop of Canterbury? That would be quite a featured topic. Mike Christie (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the FT that's first up is Gregorian mission. I should be able to knock that off reasonably soon. I'd like to do all the ABCs, but I'm not sure I can. A lot of the early ones are very ... stubby. I think I could swing a "Anglo-Norman Archbishops" FT or a "Angevin Archbishops" FT though... I'm a hair burned on Bede myself, letting him lie fallow a bit and see where it goes. I might be gone a few days mid-March, one of the horses is showing then so we'll see what happens, if we're unpacked enough to get there. I unpacked my American Stud Books and all my old horse books. I have some old Goodwin's Turf Guides that could rival your Plummer and a copy of Frank Forester's that's older than your Plummer. For that matter, my Mason's Farrier is heading toward 170. YIKES. Yes, my horse library rivals my medieval library. Nothing is scarier than a biblophile (and I've got a first edition of Stranger in a Strange Land that you may NOT even know where it lives...). I picked up a book by John Barrow called A History of History the other day that looks really interesting. And Deacon talked me into Caledonia to Pictland... it should be here in the next week or so. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, bibliophiles. I know just what you're talking about. I owned a first edition of Starship Troopers for about a year; I will have to tell you that story some time. Yes, let's let Bede lie for a bit and see what happens. Mike Christie (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall

Thank you for your review, and for checking the references for me. I have included a page number, as requested. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article or earn your support. Thanks again! --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:WPTC

Please accept this invitation to join the Tropical cyclones WikiProject (WPTC), a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with tropical cyclones. WPTC hosts some of Wikipedia's highest-viewed articles, and needs your help for the upcoming cyclone season. Simply click here to accept!

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL! I've got enough on my plate, thanks! (Too bad there isn't a Wikiproject Medieval Bishops) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no worries. I look forward to your future FAC reviews. :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Can this source be used?

May I bother you with a small query? I am researching the life of a character called Captain Benjamin Morrell. His birth and death years (1795-1839) are verifiable, but the circumstances of his death are obscure. After months of searching, the only source I can find which gives a clue about his death is a Morrell family genealogy site, which indicates that he died in Mozambique. This is the link. This information may or may not be accurate though most of the other details given here (dates, place of birth, wife's name etc) are verifiable from other sources. Do you think it would be permissible for me to say something like: "The circumstances of Morrell's death are obscure: recent genealogical research indicates that he may have died in Mozambique" and to quote the source? Or should I add additional caveats? Or should I stop after "obscure"? Your opinion would be welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Brian, Ealdgyth, pardon me for jumping in; from my own work in genealogy I can tell you that much of what is found on this sort of site is unreliable. It may well be true, but I would definitely oppose the use of this source as I have seen all kinds of inaccuracies on similar sites. I'd suggest you email the site owner and ask where they got their information from -- there may be a secondary source you're unaware of. More likely it is either family tradition or a primary source such as a death certificate. Mike Christie (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I second Mike's comments. I do genealogy also, and I am pretty much opposed to the use of most genealogy sites/sources. the only ones I'd let pass would be some of the high end journals, and family sites don't qualify. Let me dig a bit later.... I literally just got out of bed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if these are for the same guy...

Name: Morrell, Benjamin

Birth - Death: 1797-1839

Source Citation:

Benet's Reader's Encyclopedia of American Literature. First edition. Edited by George Perkins, Barbara Perkins, and Phillip Leininger. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1991. (BenetAL)

Name: Morrell, Benjamin

Birth - Death: 1795?-1839

Source Citation:

Allibone's Critical Dictionary of English Literature. British and American authors living and deceased from the earliest accounts to the latter half of the Nineteenth Century. Three volumes. By S. Austin Allibone. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1858-1871. (Alli)

American Authors and Books. 1640 to the present day. Third revised edition. By W.J. Burke and Will D. Howe. Revised by Irving Weiss and Anne Weiss. New York: Crown Publishers, 1972. (AmAu&B)

American National Biography. 24 volumes. Edited by John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. (AmNatBi)

Appleton's Cyclopaedia of American Biography. Six volumes. Edited by James Grant Wilson and John Fiske. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1888- 1889. (ApCAB)

Biography Index. A cumulative index to biographical material in books and magazines. Volume 9: September, 1970-August, 1973. New York: H.W. Wilson Co., 1974. (BioIn 9)

A Dictionary of American Authors. Fifth edition, revised and enlarged. By Oscar Fay Adams. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1904. Biographies are found in the 'Dictionary of American Authors' section which begins on page 1 and in the 'Supplement' which begins on page 441. (DcAmAu)

Dictionary of American Biography. Volumes 1-20. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1928-1936. (DcAmB)

A Dictionary of North American Authors Deceased before 1950. Compiled by W. Stewart Wallace. Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1951. (DcNAA)

Drake's Dictionary of American Biography. Including men of the time, containing nearly 10,000 notices of persons of both sexes, of native and foreign birth, who have been remarkable, or prominently connected with the arts, sciences, literature, politics, or history, of the American continent. By Francis S. Drake. Boston: James R. Osgood & Co., 1872. (Drake)

The Reader's Encyclopedia of American Literature. By Max J. Herzberg. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1962. (REnAL)

Who Was Who in America. A component volume of Who's Who in American History. Historical Volume, 1607-1896. Revised Edition. Chicago: Marquis Who's Who, 1967. (WhAm HS)

Woweee!! This is more than I expected, and thanks, Ealdgyth, for your thoroughness. Thank you too, Mike. What you both say about amateur genealogical sites rings true and I won't attempt to use this source. There is no real doubt about Morrell's years of birth and death (1795-1839) since several reputable sources give these dates; I am merely trying to find out more about when and where he died. Not all the possible sources you list will be that easy to locate in the UK, but I will certainly try and find out what, if anything, they contain. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me do something real quick. I *think* my local library has a copy of the American National Biography, I can check that real quick today since I'm going out. Don't bet on it hard, since my local town library.. sucks. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

They had American National Biography and Dictionary of National Biography. Am scanning the copies now and will email the pdf to you shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess nothing worthwhile transpired from these. I've lots of information on Morrell's life, it's only his death where details are thin on the ground. On Monday I'm going to London to visit a library that definitely doesn't suck and I'll see if I can find anything there about his demise. I've plenty enough stuff for the article, though. Thanks for your efforts. Brianboulton (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I sent you an email. I have pdf files that I just need an email from you to send you of the two things I found. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

GA review for Cultural Revolution Group

I have addressed all but one of your points [the exception is the picture]. I have left a comment about that on the review page. That part still needs some progress to be made. Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I will keep a look out for a suitable picture. Thanks for your comments. Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh my!

Ealdgyth, I think you must be one of the best contributors anywhere on wikipedia. I already gave you a barnstar a while ago, so won't give another. But I seriously don't know of any contributor better and more focused. The amount of work you're able to do and the broad range and quality of sources you use is amazing. It doesn't look that extraordinary to many, but given that most users with your output rely on online sources your work stands out all the more. On a not so unrelated note, you should stand for RfA whenever you feel you could do with the tools! Thanks for Æthelwig btw. I had been preparing an article on him off-wiki based on the two EHR articles, but only did half of what you've already did. Anyways, keep it going. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly can't think of why I'd need the tools. But thank you for the praise. My output is going to diminish a bit, spring is going to spring soon here and I'll hopefully be photoing more outside, but I have plans for several FTs to work on. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)