User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Please advise the "scholarship of the last 100 years" to which you refer as eight different sources I have in my library contradict you and Cockayne. It is worth pointing out that my source on Gundred was writing after Cockayne! David Lauder 15:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

First note this web page which gathers many of the original sources on Gundred and her brother. which is referenced on the page for William de Warenne, Gundred's wife. That site contains the Lewes Cartarlary (sp?) which is the main basis for the belief that Gundred was a daughter of William I, however it should be noted that the Cartalary was written about 1440 or so, thus making it not a primary source. David C. Douglas in "William The Conqueror" (1964, University of California Press) has an appendix (Appendix C) which discusses William and Matilda's marriage and also discusses their children. He sets forth the primary records for the daughters of the Conqueror, which are William of Poitiers, Orderic Vitalis, William of Malmesbury, Robert of Torigny and Domesday Book. Douglas also discusses the claims that Gundrad was the daughter of Matilda and a first marriage to a Gerbod, since disproven (this on page 76-7). On page 267 he refers to Gundred as the sister of Gerbod and references C. T. Clay "Early Yorkshire Charters" vol. VIII p. 40-46 (series ex. by W. Farrer and C. T. Clay, publ Edinburg by the Yorkshire Record Society, 1914-1955), C. Waters, "Gundrada de Warenne" p. 1 (Exeter,1884) , and Cartularie de Saint Bertin (ed. B. Guerard, Paris 1841) p. 176-184. In addition to Douglas' biography of William I, a few other quick citations of some secondary works (1) Stuart, Roderick W. "Royalty for Commoners" Rev. Second Ed. (Baltimore, 1995) p. 30 and p. 70 refers to William de Warenne's wife as "Gundred, sister of Gerbod, Earl of Chester, a Fleming". The authority he cites is Moriarty, G. Andrews "Plantagenet Ancestry of King Edward III and Queen Phillippa" (Salt Lake City, 1984) p. 151. (2) Admitedly this is a reference work, so it's only valuable as a reinforcing, not proving, any arguement, but Ashley, Mike "The Mammoth Book of British Kings & Queens" (New York, 1998) which lists ten children of William I and Matilda in a chart on p. 504 - these being Robert Curthose, Richard (d. c. 1081), William II "Rufus", Adela m. Stephen count of Blois, Henry I, Cecilia a nun d. 1126, Adeliza a nun d. c. 1065, Constance m. Alain count of Brittany, and Agatha d. c. 1074. Sorry for the huge wall of text, hopefully you can understand this. Thanks! Ealdgyth
Er..well, no I don't because it is too dense and not proving anything. The earliests texts we have (including Vitalis et al)cite her as William's daughter. You are citing an author in his book published in California in 1964 as saying otherwise and reckoning upon that basis to change history? I find it all too vague. British books virtually all cite her as William's daughter. How is it that in 1000 years this has not been challenged by British genealogists? David Lauder 17:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Given that Douglas is considered the definitive biography of William the Conqueror, I'm not sure what else I can muster without repeating the arguements already set forth. I don't have access to Clay's work on the charters, or at least don't any more. I am not going to fight about this, if you feel so deeply about the importance of citing something that most American and British Anglo-Norman historians don't accept, I don't think it's worth my time to fight. Feel free to revert. Might you at least set for a copy of this talk page in the history section to show that there is some disagreement? And you'll probably want to catch the change at William de Warenne's page also.

I am not aware that Douglas "is considered the definitive biographer of William the Conqueror" at all. (Is there such a thing?) How on earth can you speak on behalf of "most British Anglo-Norman historians"? I think you should retract that. Most of these historians, as far as I am aware, say Gundred was a daughter of W the C! I don't go to bed feeling strongly over such things, but I feel this is a contentious change you have made to what has been accepted for a millenium. Because of that you should at least have cited checkable authorities whereas you have only cited Cockayne, and whilst he is good he is also known to have made some blunders. So we need some checkable British source materiéls. Regards, David Lauder 20:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

My reference to the historians is from my student days studying under Sally Vaughn at the University of Houston, where I had the pleasure of helping her with serveral conferences of the Haskins Society, which is an organization of Anglo-Norman historians. Since I am no longer involved in the scholarly community, I don't necessarily know the most current research amongst such scholars as C. Warren Hollister, Frank Barlow, Sally Vaughn, Marjorie Chibnall, and others. While I met a few of those scholars I just listed (among many others), they would be unlikely to remember me, besides Ms. Vaughn, as I was not their student, just a very quiet listener in on their conversations and one of many in the audience for their papers. However, I have (I hope) reverted the edits I made. I am not IN the British Isles, nor do I any longer have easy reference to a scholarly library besides the books I quoted and listed above. If they are not acceptable to you, I do not have the ability to go to others, and see no point in continuing to advance an opinion, which I feel is correct, but am unable in good faith to convince you of. Thus the polite thing to do would be to withdraw my edits, which I have attempted to do. This particular area was not my area of interest in Anglo-Norman history so it hasn't been something I've concentrated on. As to Douglas being the definitive biography of William, it was such when I was a student in college and was so presented to me by Ms. Vaughn, herself a respected scholar in Anglo-Norman history. It has been chosen by the University of California press to be in their series on English Monarchs. If I didn't manage to revert the edits, I plead nothing more than being a beginner at this whole Wikipedia thing, and hope that you'll revert them for me. Thank you. Ealdgyth

Its all a time and motion thing. I shall have to consult further before I revert to you. Regards, David Lauder 08:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome[edit]

You are welcome. By the way, welcome to wiki horse land! There are gobs of horse articles out here and learning the wikilinks to all of them (especially when piped links are used) is quite a job, we have had some problems with people creating three different articles about the same thing, unbeknownst to one another. If you see anything that looks just horrible, give me a shout! Note from your userboxes you may find Horses in Warfare and Horses in the Middle Ages both interesting. Some of us "older" wikipedians put a ton of work into those two, getting them to "Good Article" status (hooray!), busting many myths (some of which we ourselves held) in the process. Just policing the List of horse breeds is becoming the bane of my existence and eating much more of my time than I'd like, so I welcome people who are careful with their edits and courteous to others! WELCOME! WELCOME!! Montanabw 20:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Babson and Davenport[edit]

Oh horrors! The material on Davenport is TERRIBLE, just inline references to commercial breeders! YIKES! Will have to fix if you don't get to it first. (My library of books on Arabians is pretty extensive, but always room for more stuff out there.) It's such a fascinating story...must get back my copy of his book from whomever it was I loaned it's only a rare book now worth hundreds, I loaned it out...

If you want to crank up a basic stub on Babson, that would be cool, I haven't had the time to get to it, as I don't have a super strong interest in that particulr bloodline group, so give me a heads up when you do and I can further tweak and refine. By the way, I swiped your pedigree template for the article I did on Mesaoud. Time consuming to do these in wikipedia when you can just link to, but for a few of the biggies, probably worth it.

Thanks for the kudos, getting Arabian horse to GA status was a real point of pride for me, and I've been debating whether to risk putting it up for FA status or not...up side is the feather in one's cap, the downside is monitoring for vandalism from hell... Montanabw 01:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Quarter horse racehorses[edit]

Thank you for correcting my errors in categorising Quarter horses. I am starting a clean up of the Category:Famous horses category (see Thoroughbred discussion) and noticed that many Quarter horses are only categorised as Famous horses and was looking for a suitable sub-category. Category:Quarterhorse racehorses seemed like the only suitable sub.category. Wrong. I wonder if we need a sub-category of Category:American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame horses, or do you have any suggestions for sub-categories to cover all types of Quarter horses? Regards, - Cuddy Wifter 22:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

TB's -the horses not the disease![edit]

I find it safer not to talk too much about specific horses in the breed articles, other than foundation stock. A little can work, too much starts laundry lists. I'll look over your edits to [{Thoroughbred]]. Like you say, citation up the wazoo is the key. I was pretty pleased to get GA status for Arabian horse. The wiki gods smiled on that one. I haven't the guts to try putting it up for FA status yet, but I do reference it as a breed article that is pretty good. American Quarter Horse isn't too bad, either, and Appaloosa had some good people working on it, not just me, which was a good thing. Montanabw 01:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


Created Henry Babson. Found a bunch of interestng stuff on his non-horse life that wasn't in the Modern Arabian Horse article. (FYI, bless her she's good on the horse stuff, but Patti Schofler's historical research is weak, it was poor in her book on showing too. Caught several errors, or at least, unnuanced inaccuracies.) Anyway, check it out and if you have something useful to add, go ahead (but please oh please do NOT add a laundry list of horses! Those who care can access the article). BTW, on that topic, there is NOTHING more boring to non-horse people than endless pedigrees or lists of horses. And the wiki gods HATE lists. (Arabian horse almost lost GA status because people didn't like that it was (at the time) "too listy.") Sigh. We are better off to just toss in pedigree charts and those who care can access individual horse articles or their source material. Montanabw 05:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I know all about non-horse people getting bored of pedigrees.... I work on my family genealogy also, and boy, do the relatives flee when I start talking ancestors! Hopefully, they'll never figure out that I do it on purpose to get rid of annoying aunts and uncles... Babson looks good. I fixed a few typos. If you'd like, I'm probably not that far from Grand Detour, might be able to snag a photo or two. Might be a bit, we're going on a shoot in Minnesota next week, and then to Europe on vacation the last two weeks of July and early part of August. Will be in Vienna and hopefully Lippiza though! Ealdgyth | Talk 05:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Sorrel (horse) exists. Montanabw 05:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI-2, I would almost give my right arm for a GOOD free image of the Lipizzaners actually performing...look at what's in Lipizzan, at best it's so-so. Montanabw 05:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

New possible project[edit]

Per the discussion at the jumping position article, I made a sandbox off from my user page to maybe create a whole new article on riding techniques in general. It's here: User:Montanabw/Sandbox. Dive in and help, or discuss, or whatever. Montanabw(talk) 19:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Anglicanism[edit]

Hey, I see you live in Central Illinois, I used to live in Coles County, check out Charleston Riot.

I saw your work on some of the Archbishops of Canterbury and thought I would invite you join the WikiProject focussing on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion: WikiProject Anglicanism. Our goal is to improve and expand Anglican-reltaed articles. If you (Anglican or non-Anglican) are interested, read over the project page and consider signing up. Cheers! SECisek 21:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Assorted mischief[edit]

Glad to see you back. Check out a new semi-stub I created today Trail (horse show). Needs some work and needs some pics, if you can make constructive contributions on either front, go for it. Also did a bunch of cleanup on trail riding and a while back created judged trail ride. Montanabw(talk) 07:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Bishop and York[edit]

Template:Infobox bishopbiog is the generic one. Do you think it good, or would you like a custome one? Template:Infobox Archbishop of York is also good to go. You rock! -- SECisek 20:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Change the boxes? Really?! What would you like to change on them? I was never really happy with my work on either of them. What fields should be changed/added? I'll work with you if you give me your input! -- SECisek 00:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
They are fine for now, at least for me. A lot of times the early medieval bishops end up pretty bare, but that's something that happens with the lack of sources. I like the saint box that 'collapses' so that the stuff that's blank doesn't show up, but it's not a biggie either way, honestly. Right now I'm just trying to get all the bishops into some sort of same format, especially for the stubs. And every bishop should at least have some sort of citation on when he became bishop and died/resigned. So it's off to Ely tonight, shouldn't be near as much work, as it's a relatively recent see, good ole' Henry I founded it! Ealdgyth | Talk 00:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The ABC and York box should collapse when empty. Don't they? How about the generic one? I can fix it if they don't. -- SECisek 00:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The generic one collapses, mostly. See Nigel, Bishop of Ely, where the title field (which I can't honestly think of how to fill, since there wasn't really protocol that was set in stone back then) and the birth date and place don't collapse. Wouldn't be bad if the generic one had a place for death date and place also, but it's not that important. And yeah, the Archbishop ones collapse, I think my brain is concentrating so much on making sure I get the correct data in, I'm not really looking at the boxes!Ealdgyth | Talk 00:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It does have a death date, just add after the birth place:

| date of death =

| place of death =

See Claudius of Turin I'll fix the template, if I can. I'll try and fix the collapse as well. -- SECisek 01:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is why I don't mess with templates! (laughs) I can't even decipher thier documentation....Ealdgyth | Talk 01:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Archbishops of York[edit]

If you have the desire, remodeling the List of ABoY to look just like List of Archbishops of Canterbury would probably make it a fine candidate for "Featured List" status, just like the List of ABoC already is. BTW, you are doing great work! -- SECisek 23:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(whimpers) Gee... not a little bit of work! It actually was kinda in the back of my mind, but it'll be a bit. I plan to go through all the bishops of pre-Reformation (or pre-1500) England and get them into shape, they are a mess.Ealdgyth | Talk 23:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, yes, they CAN really use the work. If fixing the ABoY list was easy, I would have done it myself by now. Maybe when you are free, we can split list, I'll take the post reformation, of course, and we can paste our work together and have a Featured List! Let me know if you are intrested and when you are free. Finish the articles first though, that is a more noble persuit. -- SECisek 23:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Added the other ABoY to the template at the bottom of the pages. Please check my work. -- SECisek 21:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me, in my tired and semi-incoherent first glance. Hoping to hit some academic libraries in the next few weeks for some articles on all the bishops and such like. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your note on the Thoroughbred project talk page[edit]

Thanks for your note. I just wanted to let you know that no apologies are needed (though I do appreciate them) for the capital O' changes that I made. When the page for Man o' War was origianlly created the capital O had been used and, thus, all links to it on other pages had been made using it, as was proper. When moving a page a step that usually gets left out is the checking for any redirects or double redirects. Single redirects don't actually have to be (but can be) changed but double ones do. The obsessive/compulsive wikignome in me just naturally fixes all of the redirects when I am moving a page and I am happy to do it. Thanks again for your note and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 19:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Want another project?[edit]

Don't know if you are aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject horse training. It's a disaster, mostly filled with "natural horsemanship" folks who themselves don't really know much about training. Anyway, somehow people seem to think I should be in charge of it, but it's more than I can handle...any help just cleaning up the page, making different suggestions, whatever. all is good, would you take a pek? Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 03:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I had JUST opened that page up and was checking it out when you dropped me that note. I'm heading out of town for tomorrow and the next day, but will try to take a gander at it when I get back. I got sucked into working on the Medieval English Bishops, which are in a worse state than the horse articles, if you can believe that. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
We all have our distractions! Hope you get over the "crud." As for sources, take a gander at what Gwinva did in Horses in the Middle Ages as far as breaking out refs from books, I like how she did it. Also, I assume that your refs actually verify (and do not contradict) the content on the pages (grin). Montanabw(talk) 05:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and if you are up on medieval stuff, how are you with British peerages and colonial officials in Commonwealth nations? I ask because all I can find on Ali Pasha Sherif is from Arabian horse sites, and I wouldn't mind having a bit more in that article on his NON-horse life, like how the heck could he afford all those horses? Montanabw(talk) 05:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
APS would not have been in a Commonwealth country though, Egypt was a sort of protectorate of the UK, and has never been in the Commonwealth. There was a native administration, which was nominally part of the Ottoman empire until the end of WWI, when I am not sure if it became indepentant then or had to spend a bit of time under the League of Nations. I have nothing on modern Egypt, except what is in Mulder's book about APS. Oh, and a bit of information on the rivalry between Egypt and France to control the Suez Canal. APS obviously was an official in the native government, Mulder says he was President of the Chamber of Commerce and then President of the Legislative Council and was in government service most of his life. Do you have Mulder's books?
I do have the Complete Peerage and am not afraid of using it, if you need anything looked up in it. I've never delved that deeply into the Blunt's peerages, but they are in there somewhere, I'm sure. Peerage law is .. strange. How some peerages pass is beyond strange.
I'll dig around some in the web and see what I turn up. I'll post whatever I find over on his page. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Craigy has been helpful with the Blunt and Wentworth peerages...and my god that IS a complicated one (I think Lady Anne Blunt basically inherited the Wentworth peerage from her NIECE, but only just before her own death, see Baron Wentworth). I was curious where the peerage Lady Anne held prior to inheriting Wentworth came from, Lord Byron, perhaps? Wilfrid Scawen Blunt never seemed to have a title, did he? No, I don't have anything of Mulder's, just have found some of her articles on the net. I have Lady Wentworth's book, though, and Covey's also. As for Egypt, my understanding is that Ali Pasha Sherif held several high offices within the Egyptian government (everything I know I pretty much put into my edits of the article), but I have found that the Arabian horse researchers don't do a very good job of looking into the real past of people ("Chamber of Commerce" I doubt there was a "Chamber of Commerce" is 1800's Egypt, maybe she meant "Minister of Commerce??) At any rate, Egypt was definitely connected to the Brits, and he was awarded one of the British honors they gave to foreign nationals, so there has to be something, somewhere. Craigy didn't have much, either. But just like I had a heckuva time figuring out Henry Babson's non-horse career, Ali Pasha Sherif is kind of a mystery man. As someone who is trying to afford horses on my day job, I am infinitely curious how these fellows made their forture, because we all know how to make a small fortune in horses (you start with a large one!). Well, anything you dig up, you know where the articles are! Montanabw(talk) 03:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


OK, things are just getting too weird for me. See the last discussion on the bottom of the page at Talk:Arabian horse and the recent edit history of the article. Seems the bestiality people have found the article and a bunch of idiots are threatening to edit it to say that Arabian stallions are vicious animals that engage in anal intercourse with humans. IIIICCCCCKKKKK! I need reinforcements! HELP! Montanabw(talk) 01:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, why am I spacing what APS stands for? Appreciate your edits. Hey, I noticed your note to self on General Stud Book. I went and changed it from a redirect into a stub with disambiguation link. Montanabw(talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talkcontribs) 03:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ali Pasha Sherif. My personal acronymn. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
And thanks on the General Stud Book move, I went and expanded it a bit more. I am now going to go cough some more and try to throw this crud! Ealdgyth | Talk 03:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Farm shoot and etc.[edit]

I don't really "get" the wikiprojects very well, the horse breeds wikiproject is prettyy much out of date and disorganized, but that said, if you can make it happen go for it! (grin). As far as images for commons, Oh lordy, photos of barns and stables would be FANTAI went through my tack room and shot lots of photos, but more are needed -- particularly images of bits, spurs, common equipment of all sorts (see, for example, Bit (horse), saddle, english saddle, and especially western saddle) To get an eye for what's there, also see horse care, horse grooming, agricultural fencing, and especially barn and stable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talkcontribs) 01:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Farm shoot and etc.[edit]

I don't really "get" the wikiprojects very well, the horse breeds wikiproject is prettyy much out of date and disorganized, but that said, if you can make it happen go for it! (grin). As far as images for commons, Oh lordy, photos of barns and stables would be FANTASTIC. Hope the rain, rain, goes away. For photos, Horses in box stalls, horses in crossties, horses getting clipped or bathed, etc. I went through my tack room and shot lots of photos of assorted stuff, but more are needed -- particularly images of bits. Wouldn't hurt to have more of spurs, common equipment of all sorts (see, for example, Bit (horse), saddle, english saddle, hackamore, and especially western saddle) To get an eye for what's there, also see horse care, horse grooming, agricultural fencing, and especially barn and stable. I'd say we are in slightly better shape with English tack generally than western tack. But see western riding, western pleasure, english riding, hunt seat. saddle seat, equitation. Just have a rough idea of what we have and where there is a screaming need for more or better images. Also see farrrier and horseshoe. Some close-up shots of interesting horseshoes or horses shod in different ways would be cool.

I could go on. but I won't. FYI, I am having eye surgery tomorrow and don't know how long I will be offline, babysit our various articles, wlll you? Montanabw(talk) 02:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks. The only breed article I care passionately about is Arabian horse which, as you discovered in the past week, has a surprising load of both vandals and well-meaning idiots. (I have reverted assorted "Arabians are vicious" or "Arabians are psychic and mystical creatures" edits so many times...sigh). People also like to change the picture around a lot, one time someone stuck in some image of the butt-ugliest horse I have seen in a long time and claimed it was a half-Arab (sigh). The one that's there now really is about the best photo I have seen of the free images available and I have been pretty jealously keeping it there. For some reason Friesian horse and Lipizzan get hit by nonsense more than you think they would, something about Black horses and White horses seems to get people going. Sigh. There's a troll at Lipizzan who seems to have it in for the Spanish Riding School and inserts a lot of edits that seem to have more to do with Classical dressage but their English is so poor that it's hard to say what they want to do and then they get pissed when I revert them. Sigh. Just another day in wiki-paradise. Those are the only tricky ones. I know you watch the Quarter Horse one already, and the Morgan horse article is usually pretty quiet with mostly useful edits that merely need the occasional rephrase or cleanup. Montanabw(talk) 02:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and cowboy gets fairly frequent vandalism and nonsense edits, too, and Mustang (horse) can degenerate fast if someone starts blanking out sections. Rodeo has been pretty quiet, but the animal rights people hit it once in a while. And I'm heading off to commons now. Montanabw(talk) 03:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Back, but on a limited basis (recuperating from eye surgery, limited computer time.) Thanks for holding down the fort in the wake of the new crisis. Arabian Horse has been GA for months. The Andalusian thing was an edit war ended months ago. This is just the usual anti-Arabian crap, and the article is sourced up the wazoo...they can put up or shut up, but if you can hold the fort for awhile, I'd appreciate it. Montanabw(talk) 03:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Rain, rain go AWAY! Good luck with all that in hurricane season down there, I guess! In the meantime, grab the digital and go hit the tack room! We need more photos of bits and stuff! (grin). Oh, see new articles: Driving (horse) and Horse harness. Might recognize something there. Montanabw(talk) 03:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


Good evening, Ealdgyth. I am a Japanese Wikipedia user. I am happy to find your image file “Image:Persianbit1.jpg” on Wikimedia Commons. I would like to link it with the article ja:ハミ (馬具) for “Bit (horse)”. If you have any information when the old bit used in ancient Persia, I would add the age in the ja.article. Thank you. --Kurihaya 12:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply on my talk page. I will edit that ja.article which is just a stub right now. --Kurihaya 23:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

English people from the 900s[edit]

Why is it many English people from the 900s were called Ethel!!! Does it have some Anglo-Saxon meaning? like Great or something? Ethelbald Ethelred and all that ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 19:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. I studed the Norman period in college because I got so confused trying to figure out the Anglo-Saxon names. Aethel means 'noble', so I guess it made sense for the kings to use it in their names. Ealdgyth | Talk 19:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah I had a feeling it meant great or his majesty or noble or something. Keep up the good work. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 20:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


You're certainly welcome, and thank you for finding a sorely neglected area of the project you could fill. I'm impressed by the volume of articles I have noticed, and I'm sure I haven't seen them all because I am just new page patrolling. Erechtheus 03:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Bishop Tagging[edit]

I appreciate your kind words on my tagging of the bishop articles. However, it is you who should be thanked for creating the articles in the first place. Therefore, thank you for creating all those articles! Captain panda 23:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Cool boot pics! I find it is rather great fun to do some of these very generic photos, just for fun.

Wanna do some for chaps? Montanabw(talk) 18:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(ducks) I don't own any chaps. Other than utterly abused half chaps for hunt seat, which I would be ashamed to show to the world. they are in worse shape by far than those poor paddock boots. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Your paddock boots are in better shape than mine. Of course, you probably didn't accidentally irrigate a pasture in yours...if I get the time, I will go off to dig through the tack room again to see what else I can dig out. Montanabw(talk) 16:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)  ;-D

New articles[edit]

Just FYI, when you return, note that I created easy keeper and hard keeper. With your interest in things equine, you may want to peruse for accuracy and maybe some sourcing. (I confess to just writing these off the top of my head). Feel free to do cleanup as needed. Oh, also uploaded more boot pics in Commons, cleaned up a pair of half-chaps I rarely use, put them over my jod boots and snapped away. Not the catalog quality of your shots, but illustrative. Put them in some articles. See chelsea boot, chaps and riding boot. If I get ambitious, might dig out my dress boots, even though they've been tucked away for the year. Montanabw(talk) 22:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

See also Raffles (horse) it's a stub, but I found a photo that no one has challenged yet, keep fingers crossed. Montanabw(talk) 05:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI, take a peek at bosal and romal, created new today. Also note working cow horse is a stub and needs help. Montanabw(talk) 23:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Adrian of Canterbury[edit]

Was he or wasn't he? You are our "go-to" for pre-Reformation English bishops. I'm leaning toward dropping him. What do you think. -- SECisek 14:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Be bold and I will support what ever your call is. -- SECisek 02:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I've noticed you've added a lot of templates and that's great. Please remember though that it's "LastName, FirstName" e.g. "Langton, Stephen" for Stephen Langton. Thanks! --Rajah 06:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Raffles and Khemo[edit]

I do like the pedigree format. Great that you got the Khemo article going. Wonder if you can swipe a photo for fair use from somewhere. (Note what I did with the photo of Serafix in [{Crabbet Arabian Stud]]. So far it has stayed there.) I wikilinked Fadl to the Henry Babson article, where he is briefly mentioned. Thanks for your addditions to the Raffles article too. Drives me nuts how flowery the language of some of that source material is, getting it to sound like an encyclopedia is a challenge. Oh well, you should have seen Friesian horse about a year ago! Some breed standards sound like an advertisement... Montanabw(talk) 04:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

WRT Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Royal_Court_of_Affairs_or_The_Shame_of_Sultan_Qaboos[edit]

I recommend you list the usernames on WP:AIV to get a block. They're all very obviously SPAMmers and nothing but and (last I knew), such accounts were given short shrift. 19:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Some days i cannot win[edit]

Heads up about another silly wikispat I have gotten myself into. Seems User:Nathweni and User:Bananas'n'Cream have a problem with my very existence and are now resorting to threats and personal attacks. See User talk:Bananas'n'Cream. I archived the spat I had with these two over shetland pony after a third party opinion settled the matter, so it wasn't cluttering up the talk page, and have removed some of the flaming that was getting started on my talk page, though if you care, the discussion was here with the heading "Where do you get offf?" I am concerned with their level of threat, and feel that it is best for a third party to step in and help cool things down, so have called upon a couple of admins to keep an eye on things. In the past, Nathweni blanked my talk page, I think these two are just a couple of kids, but I wanted to give a few people a heads up that things are heating up with these folks, who seem determined to declare that I am acting in bad faith, which I am not. (That I am occasionally tired and snippy, I confess). I am going to try to step away from their spat and disengage, but just a heads up that if they want to complain about me somewhere, I may need some support for the proposition that I am not evil to do some quality control (sigh). Thanks Montanabw(talk) 04:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw that they were commenting on your talk page. I'd be more inclined to worry about it if they were actually doing any other contributions to the encyclopedia, but so far it seems to consist of pictures and fussing at you. Probably a good idea to just step back and let them be for a bit, it's not like there aren't plenty of other horse articles that need lots and lots of work! At least it's not someone like our friend who wanted to include the sex with horses stuff into the horse articles...Ealdgyth | Talk 04:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and never worry about working on anything *I* started. I've utterly exhausted my information on Indraff with getting what I got up up. I have no issues with people working over what I write, more eyes are better. If you get a fact wrong, I'll call you on it, don't worry!Ealdgyth | Talk 04:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I shouldn't let these little kids bother me, especially when I am probably a good 30 years older than either of them. Sigh. I just like doing stuff here, it is supposed to be my relaxing hobby, and I just hate it when I can't relax and edit in peace. And by the way, ditto on editing my stuff, especially catching typos, I can't see worth a damn right now and am making more than my share! Montanabw(talk) 04:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Horse article LOL[edit]

Nice work on Raseyn, I added some stuff there and to Khemosabi. Wish I could remember if Paul Husband was the creator of the Khemo cartoon strip or not. Oh well. Did a fair use rationale of the images I added, I think I did it correctly (the ones I did for Skowronek and Lady Wentworth have stayed, but they are a lot older...) I am also amused at who we are picking to write about first, gee, great minds...? FYI, one of my mares is gaited, like Raseyn...and she was my jumper, top, interesting synchronicity. (And has the head, the long back, and the arthritis...) I did not fully realize this until she was about 25 and I started to let her slack off and be a dork on the trails, lo and behold if she didn't decide one day that a singlefoot was the fastest way she was going to get home. (If mom wasn't going to let her trot, she'd figure out some way to stay ahead of everyone else,!). Montanabw(talk) 07:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You just wait! It ain't done yet. FYI, this little gal is a 3/4 Arab Witez II great-granddaughter. Montanabw(talk) 05:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, NOW it's all the way up. Feel free to dive in and fix, enhance, correct, source, etc.Montanabw(talk) 06:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


Noticed that when you did persondata stuff, you missed Judith Blunt-Lytton, 16th Baroness Wentworth, though you got Wilfrid and Lady Anne. Just FYI if you want to do anything about it, no big deal to me either way. Say! Did you upload any images over in Commons? Montanabw(talk) 18:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture[edit]

Great to have you aboard the project! Look around on our very new project page and talk page for places you can help and don't be bashful about making things better on the project's page while you're about it!--Doug.(talk contribs) 04:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Bits and stuff[edit]

Hey is Image:Fullcheckwithtwistsnafflealpha.jpg also a Doctor Bristol link there? I have kind of wanted something in bit mouthpiece that can show the difference between a French link (flat, mild) and a Dr. Bristol (angled, severe). I'm also going to see if I can put that "blankie" photo into Horse blanket if you don't beat me to it! Say, notice that Witez II showed up in "Did you Know? Today? Coolness! (but many assorted edits too, mostly for the better, I have to admit!) Montanabw(talk) 02:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No clue on the bit. I will admit to being utterly ignorant on bits. I use the mildest thing I can, and rely on my trainer friends to buy bits for me. That one was bought for the cowhorse, as a back up bit for Image:Snafflefulltwistalpha.jpg for those days when the cowhorse part wants to shine through, rather than the dressage horse in training he's supposed to be! Ealdgyth | Talk 02:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Andalusian wars again, sigh[edit]

Hi E,

Thanks for catching that blanked section. Just an FYI that that stuff in the Arabian horse article looks like another round in the periodic edit wars some group of Andalusian people periodically unleash. About every six months or so this happens, like clockwork, and I appreciate that more eyes than mine are keeping an eye on things. There is a faction who cannot cope with the fact that Andalusians have Arabian breeding and had Barb influence. (check some web sites, they like to claim that their pure horses are unchanged from the petroglyphs on the caves in France--they are just as obsessed with the purity question as some Arabian breeders can get). And thus they often blank material or edit stuff badly (one reason why the invasion of Spain section doesn't have the standard claim that the Arabian was foundation stock for the Andalusian, just sets them off, and especially because Deb Bennett's anti-Arabian bias doesn't help, all we can do is point to the mDNA evidence of crossbreeding with the Barb and the written, documented addition of Arabian breeding in the 1800's, which is pretty tough to refute--even that sets them off, but it can withstand the scrutiny of wikipedia standards if they blank it). Sigh. Just another day in paradise. Montanabw(talk) 17:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Cows and horses[edit]

I have a filly like that, bosses the ones under her like she's in working cow horse (by the way, talk about another article that needs some work, and some photos!). Runs them in circles, makes them change direction, it's hilarious. Her mama was a real live ranch horse and so she spent most of her first two years in the cow pasture, sees cows now and nickers to them like they are her babies...I keep telling her, "I can't afford to make you into a cow horse, I can't afford to make you into a cow horse..." LOL! Oh, by the way, cattle also needs some help. Montanabw(talk) 17:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish[edit]

Wish I could go out and play with the horses. Unfortunately, I am not at home right now. Montanabw(talk) 20:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sucks, doesn't it! Just let things calm down, nothing that needs to be done besides letting things go, which is probalby the best thing to do. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I hate being misunderstood. But trying to explain things seems to make it worse. So frustrating. Montanabw(talk) 20:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


Don't sweat the pedigree, I still can't figure out that charting very well. Trouble with Polish names? What? You mean you can't pronounce oh, Bakszysz? (Have you ever heard ANYONE say that name out loud? Out loud three times, fast?) Well, ZMKYPHTZKLTHYZ, then!  :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talkcontribs) 05:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The chart is easy. It's just an Ahnentafel, 1 is the subject. 2 is the sire, 3 is the dam. from there, you double the number to get that horse's sire, and double and add one to get the dam for a particular horse. So for Ofir --who is number 4 in Bask's pedigree --, Ofir's sire is 8, and his dam is 9. Basic genealogy for the win! Ealdgyth | Talk 05:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Learn something new every day, not real up on geneology, but it makes sense, though still a bit mind-boggling after about the third generation for me! Interesting, though. Montanabw(talk) 05:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


There is now a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Horses for a new "parent" horse project. If anyone who looks at this page is interested, they are more than welcome to indicate their support there. Also, there is a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horse breeds about whether to merge that project in or keep it as a spinoff. Montanabw(talk) 04:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

PASE lists[edit]

Hello. Great work with those Anglo-Saxon bishops! Did you know that the PASE had lists of bishops cunningly hidden away here? All the best! Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


I use the reference templates on all my GAs, but the system you used should pass. If it doesn't we will swap them out. I am not going to change them unless they make me, even though I personally use the templates. I'll look at the other two. Keep up the great work on the English episcopacy! I am starting to work on the post-reformation bishops very slowly. -- SECisek 16:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Council of Rheims of 1148[edit]

Created Council of Rheims, add what you can. -- SECisek 19:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


I feel like a fraud! If it is possible, I know less than nothing about the Normans in Ireland. However, good old Theobald Walter is in the Oxford DNB, where he is "Theobald Butler (d. 1205)" in wiki-terms, seemingly to distinguish him from a 17th century lawyer Sir Toby Butler. I think that User:DGG, or User:John Kenney, could more than likely rustle up a copy of the DNB article on Theobald if you fancied reading it. They are usually very good. I have the one on Dunstan and can send you it if that's of any interest. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...would "1st Baron" even be a title in use at the beginning of the 13th century? My understanding is that the idea of a baron as a specific rank in the peerage, with title creation, only really appears in England with the creation of parliament in the later 13th century. Prior to that, a baron is just an informal rank used for the nobility. The only real noble title in the later sense in this period would be Earl. I would assume that something similar would be going on for Ireland. In terms of surname, I think the basic issue is that surnames were still fluid. So he could be Theobald Walter (or Fitzwalter?) and also Theobald Butler. But I'd be warry of "Nth Baron X" before the existence of parliaments. john k 20:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Real life[edit]

Quite busy, but I will do my best ASAP. -- SECisek 05:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If there are refs, we can pass GA. The rest is smoke and mirrors. -- SECisek 05:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Theobald of Bec[edit]

The article Theobald of Bec you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.png, see Talk:Theobald of Bec for eventual comments about the article. Well done! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Murrey Cup -- Weird Question[edit]

I noticed that many of your interests correspond to something I tripped over yesterday and thought I'd take a chance that you knew the missing piece. Do you know what a Murrey Cup is? (No, not the soccer world cup.) The Murrey Cup references come from two 14th Century English Wills.

The first one is from the will of Sir Edmund de Thorpe (d. 1393). He left a "murrey cup, tipped with silver, which is the charter cup of Thorp" to his heir. See An Essay Towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk. 1806. pp. p. 148.  available at: "An Essay Towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk".  There are also some other references to this exact incident, but they also quote from the will word for word, so don't help in the matter.

The other reference deals with Sir William de Staunton and his will dated 1312. He leaves a murrey cup with a foot to his son and heir and another to his son's wife. See History of Nottinghamshire. 1797. pp. p. 308.  Available at: "History of Nottinghamshire". 

Now, if I'd only had the one reference I'd have been willing to dismiss it as merely discussing the cup's color. But with 3 cups involved, I'm wondering if it means something else. I've searched the web as best I know how and have not come up with additional references. Do you happen to know anything about it?Kenalynn 22:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Sounds possible anyway. Will do some searching that way.Kenalynn 00:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You are great[edit]

I would give you another barnstar if I could! Let's keep them going! -- SECisek 06:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate help on Cowboy[edit]

Seems we have been spotted by a very anal-retentive admin over on Cowboy. Thanks for your help getting some of the sections sourced. While I agree that the article can benefit from further footnoting, I am rather easily annoyed by the "citation snobs." Appreciate your help, big time! Also appears we are online simultaneously. Do we have a real life? (grin) Montanabw(talk) 19:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I spent yesterday riding yet another allegedly "really gentle with kids horse you could use for lessons." No way, not a bad critter, but 19 years old, yet cinchy, sets back on ropes, no mouth, tense, they admit he was a semi-rescue and he obviously didn't trust me. Bless him, probably a good-hearted fellow in there somewhere, but no, I would not in fact put an eight year old on him. God, I wish I could just erase 10 years off my 27 year old mare and take away all her arthritis. Really, I actually wish I had cloned my old half-Arab that lived to 33. And yes, requesting citations when things aren't contentious is very annoying (cites in the popular culture section, for crying out loud?). ARRGH! Have you ever read meta:Don't be a dick? It's my favorite! Unfortunately, using it as advice to people tends to really piss them off. (sigh) Montanabw(talk) 19:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

May do that with my little black filly for my DH in about 3-4 years, depending on whether she turns her smarts to good or evil! (grin). Ever noice that when a horse turns about 8, they sort of "grow up" mentally? Like there's a cognitive shift in their little heads? (Actually that study of attention span in horses also noted that 8-10 year olds have a dramatically increased attention span over 3-6 year olds, maybe there IS something to it) In the meantime, I like having at least one very steady "anyone can ride" horse on the place, but still young enough for some real work. My kiddo is now grown, never did take to horseback riding, likes to brush their manes and pet noses, other than that, well, the gene horse skipped the direct family line and hit two of my cousins' kids instead. Will have to dig out my cowboy books when I get home, doing wikipedia over high speed wi fi at a coffee shop right now (dialup at home is S-L-O-W!) Montanabw(talk) 19:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The newbie[edit]

I went in and pretty much just did one of those slapdowns that makes people love me so much! (grin). If I accidentally tossed some of your stuff, my apologies. I threw out all the lists, and slapped on a bunch of fact tags. I had a copyvio tag there for a bit, but realized that was overkill and removed it. You can be the good cop here, I can be the bad cop. Montanabw(talk) 18:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it for now, and will touch bases again tonight. Go do the cookie thing! Montanabw(talk) 18:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

I want to take him back to GA, can you offer any suggestions: Thomas Wilson (bishop)‎. I know, he is a bit late in history for you, but I mean style & language, not facts.

Thank you as always. -- SECisek (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome thx[edit]

Thanks for your welcome to wikipedia.My focus for now is going to be on the early middle ages in ireland prior to the Norman infiltration.My main interest is in dark age history as i feel there is lots of room for illumination and the theories that are coming into existence among modern historians are really beginning to shed some light on this era.I'm not too familiar with ecclesiastical history.Actually I'm quite the amateur historian just well-read in the subject. again thanks.Timelinefrog 05:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Begging letter[edit]

Hello, hope you and yours are well. I'm currently working on Constantine II of Scotland, but it is rather dependent on a single source. You know what they say about a man with one book. Would it be possible for you to email me a copy of the Oxford DNB article on Constantine? It's this one. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Received! Thank you very much indeed, Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


Zen question: What is the sound of one can of whoopass opening...? Watch the master in action, grasshopper. Montanabw(talk) 00:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


It isn't done yet as several sees were created in the 19th century. I told you if you did the pre-Reformation bishops, I would take the post-Reformation ones and I intend to make good on that. -- SECisek (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is cool![edit]

Someone created Template:Equidae. It's cool, it's easy to edit, it may be a great way to organize the horse articles. I strongly suggest we start to add it (like this: {{Template:Equidae}} at the bottom on any articles we are working on. I edited it a little to expand what was there, though we wouldn't want to let it get totally out of hand, but if the articles we put into it all have really good links to everything else under that general subject, that would work. I linked a couple of categories, too... Anyway, I like it and wanted to give you a heads up! Montanabw(talk) 23:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

May want to keep an eye on same eager beaver. (User:4444hhhh) She (I am guessing this is a she, and under 16) has just gone off and started Wikipedia:Wikiproject Equines. Voila, how about that? Not sure is was done the way the protocol is supposed to go, but it doesn't look too bad, actually...and especially considering that we have been jawing about a horse one for months and not actually making one happen. However, go read the page, she has good energy, but isn't aware of all that has already been done here. So far she has mostly been great and just adding the template to assorted pages, but she may need a little guidance and some slowing down to not get overdone with other edits that are not helpful (had to revert one, not a big deal, just stuff that didn't belong where it was put. Also have been tweaking the template a bit, tiny bit of red links and iffy categorization going on). And I can get snarky, biting newcomers and such, when I don't mean to, so am calling in my posse of people who are kinder and more patient than I am!! Anyway, this is probably a good young editor if we treat her well, but she could get a little overeager. Just a heads up. Montanabw(talk) 06:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

And thank you for taking the time to vote for me! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Invite to WikiProject Equine[edit]

This is the official word: WikiProject Equine was quietly created by someone while the rest of us were endlessly discussing a WikiProject Horse. We have an official project! So let's go with it, and I am officially inviting you to formally join! Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine, add your name to the list and see what you can contribute. If you haven't already joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse breeds or one of the other "child" or "affiliated" wikiprojects at WikiProject Equine, please feel free to do so. Just trying to tag articles with the new templates has awakened me to the fact that there are over 1000 equine articles in Wikipedia! (My watchlist alone is now at something like 700+) There's much to do and plenty for everyone! Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 09:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

She IS baaaack[edit]

Hi E, have fun? Hope so. The Arabian article, fortunately, is not in crisis. I just have to apparently find a cite that explains that Arabians don't have dilution genes or come in overo or dominant white. (I mean, duh, the registry site says they only recognize a limited number of colors so by default they obviously don't have the rest, but I guess they want something that says that in so many words.) I'm going to check the lavender foal syndrome article, I think it says something about how LFS/CCDL is not "lethal white." Anyway, I guess it can't hurt to source some more stuff as we have time, there are only 100 unique citations in the article and several (like Upton and GBE) cited multiple times. I honestly would like to see the articles in wikipedia that are more extensively sourced. (sigh) I need to find a good source for the stuff on the pelvis angle anyway, as I'm sure someone will eventually challenge that one, even the g-dd--m AHA site is starting to buy the "flatter hip angle" argument (which I am sure the sport horse and reining folks are not happy to hear, do the halter people run EVERYTHING there? Arrgh!) Well, welcome back to the wikiworld, and be sure to sign yourself up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine now that someone else got it up and running. Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse breeds seems to be picking up, too. We have a new person, Countercanter, who is just going to town on the warmblood articles (has some good source material), and another newer user, DanaBoomer, who seems to be into doing cleanup on the obscure breed stuff. Montanabw(talk) 04:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


Here's wishing you a very Happy New Year. There's a new rollback feature that makes it easier to revert vandalism. There's a stupid bureaucratic process you can follow if you like, but since I disagree with it you can just let me know if you want it turned on and I'll push the necessary buttons. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I had to read that twice, I thought you were in Antarctica to start with! It's done now. If you know of anyone else who might benefit from it, point them in my direction and I'll be pleased to help. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


I am guessing that you want to do up an infobox for all the various non-racehorse "biographies", but I'm confused...why did you recreate the same template that is already being used on all the Thoroughbred racehorse articles, when most of our articles are not about racehorses? I mean it looks the same...? If nothing else, it would be nice to find a "photo needed" silhouette other than that of a racehorse (the one used on the stub tag probably could be blown up and used instead)

If we do a horse info template for other horse articles, we may need to substitute the race record sections for stuff more generic but relevant, such as "discipline" (i.e Eventers, Show Jumpers, Reining, etc.), breed, and maybe performance record.

I also loathe that brown color in the TB infobox, and would prefer to use that same peach shade we use on the horse breeds infobox (or at least, anything but that hideous brown). I think there is some wikipedia rule on color families (like pink for animals and variations on pink for infoboxes on individual species of animals), but not sure what it is.

Another mess to look at is the formatting done on the horses that have been in the Olympics, they have charts of medals, plus some of the articles have some kind of standard list. See the articles in Category:Famous Warmbloods for example.

Oh, I'm just rambling. I think formatting wise it looks good, it just seems to be real similar to the other one that's out there...? Montanabw(talk) 03:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we are not allowed to pick colors willy-nilly, and green seems to be reserved for plant infoboxes. Pink was selected by the wikigods for Animal (or at least mammal) infoboxes, and hence why the horse breeds one is that weird peach color. I see you beat me to the punch and used it, so all is well. Montanabw(talk) 06:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, whoops, there is Infobox Horse and Horse Infobox, got them confused. Hmm wonder if yours should be named "Famous Horse Infobox" or something, could be confusing??? Dunno. Will fiddle with the color scheme, if it's pukey see if something in the pinkish family is better. Montanabw(talk) 06:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Archbishop William[edit]

Looks to be far beyond the requirements for a good article. The only things that people would expect in a featured article would be the usual severe copy-editing and perhaps some more paddingcontext. The GA process is fundamentally arbitrary and unpredictable: it depends on the reviewer you get. Some complete rubbish passes, other great articles fail. Nil carborundum! Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Small plea for help[edit]

Hi, check out the spat under "Spanish horse" on my talk page and the replies on the other person's talk page. Seems Andalusian horse is not in danger of a major edit war. Apparently the "Pure Spanish Horse" crowd doesn't get along with the "Andalusian" crowd/ I've requested move protection and tried to settle this person down, but well, read the replies, you get the picture. I sourced the article a bit further (no energy to footnote that puppy, I'd have to care more) and the IALHA backs the position that there are Andalusian and Lusitano horses, which have slightly different definitions of their breed than does the PRE crowd, though there appears to be some cross-communication. However, every time this article gets noticed, the edit wars are particularly vicious. Had to deal with a lot of vandalism of the Arabian article once when I dared mention that they contributed to the Andalusian. This time, I'm trying to not go ballistic over the Andalusian article, as I'm clearly dealing with a new user and someone crazier than me. I decided not to mention that the "pure since time immemorial" Andalusian had Arabian blood infused by the 13th century and again, documented, in the late 1800s. Nor that Barbs and Andalusians share common mitochondrial DNA. Hmmm. Anyway, can you watchlist and eyeball for another move or weird edits? Montanabw(talk) 03:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem kids[edit]

See what I am doing to the one, you can take your pick of what to do with the other and add a better rationale too. User:Accounting4Taste is an admin who digs deleting stuff. But the tags usually work fast if the article is new. Montanabw(talk) 03:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, this helps: Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion. Explains everything. Cowboy gets similar fun to Sparta, I think. Especially during football season. Had to permanently semi-protect Pony for similar reasons. Vandals! Grrr. Montanabw(talk) 03:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I see the wikigods didn't like your tag on Obvious Conclusion, so I re-tagged it and was a little more hard-hitting. Maybe it will be a take this time. Montanabw(talk) 03:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the wikigods saw that I'm not really a deletionist (grins). Thanks for the retag, we'll see what happens. I tried many different attempts to find a copyvio, but couldn't find anything but mirrors of the wikipedia article itself. It sure does read like advertising copy though, you must admit. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your GA review of Ralph Flanders[edit]

Dear Ealdgyth, I very much appreciate your diligence in performing a GA review of Ralph Flanders. Thank you. I believe that I can address the concerns that you raised within the week. I have one question, however. In two of the bullets you refer to "FAC;" I don't know what that stands for. I can watch for your reply here. Sincerely, --User:HopsonRoad 16:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC and FA refer to Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, which are the usual next step after Good Article. Hope this helps! Ealdgyth | Talk 17:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ealdgyth, Thank you for the clarification. I believe that I have completed the check list that you left for me at Talk:Ralph Flanders#Good article nomination. If there's anything major left to do, please let me know. If it's minor, please feel free to be bold and fix it yourself! Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 02:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the GA promotion. It's my first! Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 02:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review[edit]

Many thanks! I'll take a look at it later today, got class right now. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Sorry, we weren't able to suggest any articles for you. Something is probably wrong on our end.

^What on earth is that? Anyhow, thanks so much! Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
SuggestBot went... wonky .. earlier today. Havent' felt like doing anything about it, I find it amusing to see a broken bot. And congrats on the GA! Now go and do a review of one! Ealdgyth | Talk 22:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Dan Dworsky GA on hold[edit]

I think we have addressed your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox whoops[edit]

Hey E, I noticed that in some of the horse infoboxes, you put the sire's dam in the "damsire" field, when it should be the dam's sire. (You know, Bask (Witraz x Balalajka by Amurath-Sahib) as an example). I fixed a couple, and will troll the other Ay-rab articles to fix, but not sure where all you put these, so a heads up that a fix is needed. Montanabw(talk) 04:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Confused by your comment? Huh? Foreign languages? I'm really slow tonight, may have to spell it out for me. (grin) The TB boxes and most other breeds just do the grandsires on both sides...anyway, that's how I read that. There's an argument for the Arab infoboxes to put the tail female dam line too, but that means tracing the tail female back to the desert, which would be a pain. (And nobody really cases about that any more anyway, other than maybe the Al Khamsa crowd, except Bowling's research showed that horses allegedly of the same dam line had different mtDNA in some cases, so their pedigrees may be off anyway...) Maybe it should say "paternal grandsire" and "maternal grandsire" except that takes a lot of space...oh, I dunno. Just want standard info, sire x dam by maternal grandsire, how we get there? Beats me! Montanabw(talk) 04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I get it now. (grin) I'm just out of it too. In my case, I blame Gremlins for these things. Montanabw(talk) 05:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dan Dworsky[edit]

Thanks for taking the time to review the Dan Dworsky article and offering your feedback. I'm glad you enjoyed reading the article, too.Cbl62 (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Bell[edit]

Gordon Bell (American football) is ready for your reconsideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your time and input on both the Dworsky and Bell articles.Cbl62 (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Washington Park Race Track[edit]

I see you are involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing, Wikipedia:WikiProject History. I have been having trouble bringing Washington Park Race Track to WP:GA status. Given your involvement in WP:GA and understanding of what is required for GA, I was hoping you migght have access to resources that might enable you to augment the article so that I can pursue a promotion for it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. If and when you are done I would like to renominate so let me know when you are satisfied with your improvements.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, since the sports queue is 5 or 6 weeks long, I am going to put it in the queue right now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: X (manga)[edit]

I fixed most of the stuff you pointed out. Please see the talk page.--Nohansen (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Texas[edit]

Thank you very much for reviewing Spanish Texas against the GA criteria. I've made an effort to address all of your concerns. Your suggestions were really helpful - in looking for some of the information you asked for I found a few more sources that I can use later to improve the article further :) If you see anything else in the article that needs immediate work or if I misunderstood or didn't fully address one of your concerns please let me know. Karanacs (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

THANKS! I appreciate both the time you spent reading the article and the time you spent making such detailed comments! Karanacs (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


We did not know you were a her. You must be part of my wishlist.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to apologize directly. You talk so knowledgably about football that I (very wrongly) made an errant assumption. Sorry about that!Cbl62 (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
We are ready for you to take another pass when you have the time. Thanks.Cbl62 (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


I would not be surprised if another two or three dozen more take legitimate cracks at GA and FA. Check with Cbl62. I have created almost all of the ones that I think I can really do anything with. He has access to information and likes to create pages for all the All-Americans. He has several that are ready to be nominated in addition to the ones in the queue already. My next WP:FAC will be Tyrone Wheatley and then I will try to get Cbl62 to nominate or co-nominate some other Wolverines that have made GA for FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

So far, I've done 61 Michigan Wolverines biographies, but not all of them are Good Article candidates. I'd guess there's probably another dozen that are either in line now or about to be ready. I think the Germany Schulz article is the best of the bunch, though Bob Chappuis had an interesting life, too, and those are in the queue now waiting for GA reviews. Thanks again for your help!Cbl62 (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

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

Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester
William-Henry Gauvin
Joseph E. Stiglitz
John de Ufford
Young Hegelians
Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
Arnold Janssen
Bishop of Aberdeen and Orkney
Edward White Benson
Bishop of Edinburgh
Bishop of Worcester
Southsea Castle
Boyton, Wiltshire
English Interregnum
Robert Runcie
Theodor W. Adorno
Edwy of England
Irish War of Independence
Bishop of Durham
Battle of Balaclava
Add Sources
William Temple (archbishop)
Pope Celestine V
List of the most popular names in the 1890s in the United States
City of Durham
Oswiu of Northumbria
De Stijl

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) 22:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Easy Jet[edit]

Hmm... that's a bit of a tough one to call. As I read it, my biggest problem was "Why is the 'On the race track' so general?" Isn't there any interesting/notable information on his individual races out there? Obviously you don't want to turn the article into a rambling play-by-play of every race the horse ever had, but maybe a subsection or two on its most notable races? I just really didn't get a sense of why this source was so important. I mean, he's notable by Wikipedia for being in the Hall of Fame, but I didn't really get a sense of why he was in the Hall of Fame. Anything that can be done to improve that would help the article. Also, as minor stylistic issues, sentences should never begin with "however", contractions such as "didn't" should not be used and all one-two sentence paragraphs that are not leading into or out of block quotes should be either merged our expanded for flow. Then again, I'm only one reader, someone doing an actual review may feel different or get a different feel from the article, but that's just my opinion. Most of my Good Articles are small ones, but, because they are smaller, they tend to go into more detail than you would go into for "more notable" articles. Emphasizing the details that make this horse special can never hurt. Maybe another problem is that particular section reads like "fact after fact after fact" rather than a flowing work of prose, which makes it difficult to read and follow. Again, just my subjective opinion from reading the article. Cheers, CP 05:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Never worry about "too short". As long as its complete, the length is irrelevant. My smallest GA was I'll See You in Court but there are several I've seen that are shorter including, I believe, several of the bishop articles. Cheers, CP 05:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Very nice job on Easy Jet - one of the more concise yet comprehensive entries I've seen. While owning a lovely QH mare of good bloodlines myself I'm not even remotely anywhere in the vacinity of being a guru on QHs. That said compared to a lot of the 'flowery' entries found on well-known TB horses yours is more of a model for what other equine entries should resemble. As for Dash For Cash somehow either you or I will get the additional info in there. I don't know if D. Wayne Lukas was the sole trainer so I wouldn't want to infer as such by simply sticking him into the info box. Keep up the good work. --Kellsboro Jack (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

After another informal review, I'd say that it's definitely a viable GA candidate now. I did notice three small things. First of all, make sure all direct quotes are directly cited, even if it's with the same citation used at the end of the sentence/paragraph (I saw at least one in the second paragraph of "On the race track". Also, every now and then there are statements like "Easy Jet won easily", which, to me at least, doesn't sound neutral or encyclopedic. If it won by a long shot or with a time far ahead of another horse, then that would be a more objective way of stating the same thing. If the source just says "Easy Jet won easily", then I think it's an unnecessary subjective comment and should probably be removed. That may just be me though, and the actual GA reviewer I'm sure will point out anything that they find questionable. Finally, I do think that the lead would be more in-line with WP:LEAD if it were a bit more detailed. Otherwise, I'd say it looks very good! Cheers, CP 20:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Hi Ealdgyth. Sorry, but I don't understand you question about Edit Summaries. Could you explain on my talk page? Best regards. PHG (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Medal of Merit[edit]

GA Award.png The Good Article Medal of Merit 
I want to assure you that your guidance and patience in the GA process is greatly appreciated and valued. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You need one of these:

Symbol support vote.svg This user has reviewed
  1. Good Article nominations on Wikipedia.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Assorted stuff[edit]

Sorry I haven't had time to go over Easy Jet with a fine toothed comb, you will note that all of a sudden I am real popular (and the mystery of the Old Black Horse has been rather fun), and what's on my talk page is only the half of it -- there's a European gun nut giving me fits on the Cowboy talk page, he doesn't believe that cowboys could carry pistols while on a horse, thinks they were still using black powder in the 1880's, etc...and we have at least one if not two overeager kids writing messy horse stubs did I get involved with all this?

That said, I will peek at what I can when I can. Too cold to ride, indeed, we finally are actually getting some serious snow around here, unfortunately at the moment it's in the form of a flat-out blizzard! Real life a bit busy at the moment as well, you know, the day job to afford the horses...sigh...anyway, I'm whining but wanted to say that you are doing a great job, and don't be concerned if I am only giving things a lick and a promise at the moment. Montanabw(talk) 03:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


Who did you want to nominate: Jet Deck or Easy Jet???? See[1]--Redtigerxyz (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Jack Clancy[edit]

I am actually very pleased with the effort you have been putting into reviewing the Wolverines articles. I'm spending some time this afternoon beefing up the Clancy article, and it should be ready for your further comments by tomorrow. Cbl62 (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Jack Clancy article is ready for you to take another look at when you have time.Cbl62 (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I took care of the orphan. After the battle of the Franks and the Mongols, a little football viewing should lighten things up. Go Pats.Cbl62 (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week[edit]

GA Award.png The Good Article Medal of Merit
Congratulations, I have chosen you as my GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 19th January 2008. Epbr123 (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Help (sigh)[edit]

Check here: Special:Contributions/Merrymount I need say no more, except HELP!!! Usually about a half-dozen tags per article and a couple requests for speedy deletion usually do the trick. She's getting better at creating adequate articles, but the quantity is daunting. Oh, when will school start again? Montanabw(talk) 06:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Councils of London[edit]

Nice work! I had a feeling you might contribute to those! Neddyseagoon - talk 10:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


Daoken 11:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Templates and assessments[edit]

Check out the changes I made with the WikiProject Horse breeds template. I did a copy and paste from the WPEQ one, changing what looked like the relevant syntax. But I may have screwed something up; my thinking is that the horse breeds assessments can go into the same categories as the WikiProject Equine assessments, but I don't know if that's possible or not. But the thing is that the Horse breeds template is already on a couple hundred articles so editing the existing template was vastly preferable to creating a new one. Anyway, I have no idea what I'm doing, so can you take a peek? Template:WikiProject Horse breeds and where it appears and I popped in an assessment, such as Talk:American Quarter Horse? Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 04:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


Hiya, just checking, do you agree that there is consensus for the rewrite, at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Rewrite 2? And if so, would you be willing to help enforce it by reverting PHG? If it's just him and me reverting each other, this could go on a long time, so it's really necessary that some other editors be willing to actually enforce consensus. If you'd rather not, I understand, but I really think that this would help shorten the dispute, if it were shown that other editors were willing to support the rewrite by reverting PHG's rollbacks. --Elonka 08:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand, completely. I'm about ready for my own local librarians to start banning me from the library, I've done so many inter-library loan requests on this topic.  ;) And please do continue participating in any way that you do feel comfortable.  :) --Elonka 18:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Overhill Cherokee[edit]

Absolutely you should keep it on hold and insist on more lead! This article doesn't come close to WP:LEAD's requirement for broadness; a lead should allow the reader to have a general (but not detailed) idea of the subject from having just read the lead, which usually entails that every major point/heading is summarize in the article (at least one sentence, preferably more for bigger sections). GA is not supposed to be a "rubber stamp" process, it's supposed to be for article improvement, so the nominator should be more than happy to take policy-backed suggestions for improvement. It's called "Good Articles" not "Good Enough Articles", so if you feel that some form of improvement could be garnered from policy, don't hesitate to ask, nay demand, that it be performed. If they disagree, they'd better disagree on policy grounds, because otherwise, Wikipedia's policies (WP:IAR doesn't apply since the intent is to use the policies to more objectively, rather than subjectively, improve the article) triumph. Hope the helps. Cheers, CP 07:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am so jealous![edit]

...of the fact that you are not stuck on a dialup the way I am! Go for it, assessment lady! By the way, I am agreeing with most of what I see, I haven't reviewed all (and won't, I trust ya) but I agree that the obscure breeds need to be assessed "low" and the more significant ones (for whatever reason, like popularity in their own country, or movie fame or whatever) can be "mid." Montanabw(talk) 03:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with mind-numbing. One thing I do is check the main article for a "stub" tag and make sure they match up. It looks like Una or someone did the assessment criteria up, I'd say a photo and refs will probably get it to start class, though in a few cases, that might not be enough (a photo, two sentences and a ref to that awful Hendricks book is still a stub, IMHO!). I did assess Thoroughbred "high," but it's the only article I did. My reasoning is that the horse racing industry is such a multi-gazillion-dollar thing plus the way the industry drives so much veterinary science, and how many breeds have been developed from the TB. I didn't do so for Arabians or Quarter horses, though, even though I'd personally consider them very significant, because I fear doing so will start edit wars, everyone will want their breed ranked "high." Thoughts?? Montanabw(talk) 04:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


I think we are on the same page. It all depends on PHG's response to this, but it is nice to know that my "motion" has support. (I have been involved in this since the beginning, ever since I congratulated PHG for creating what looked like such a fine article back in August...) Frankly, I think the PHG is more likely to be on board if we start with the 200k version, and since I am slightly in favour of that (I'd prefer to trim rather than worry about possibly expanding), I think it would be best only if it is necessary if you support starting from there. That said, since Elonka (and others) clearly hope to start from the 70k version, we may find ourselves in a bind, so the first step is developing consensus for one version or other, and it really doesn't matter (objectively or to me) which. Srnec (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have left a message at User talk:PHG. Thanks for heads up. Srnec (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ted Petoskey[edit]

That was a pretty easy set of changes. I think I got 'em all.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Archbishop of Canterbury infobox[edit]

Thanks for the warning that my edit had broken the box. I realized it shortly after making the edit. As you noticed, I corrected the error. I've edited the infoboxes for both de Grey and Reginald to indicate that they were not in fact confirmed. I think that's a sensible edit, since previously a glance at the infobox gave what I believe was a false impression.Mamalujo (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


You are on fire man! You review GA's faster than anyone I have seen! Good job! Λua∫Wise (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You know if every nominator did the same, there would not be such a massive backlog at GAN. Λua∫Wise (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to join in and say thanks for taking the time to review our Overhill Cherokee article. Your peer-review abilities are impressive. Kate Turabian smiles upon you. Bms4880 (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Silky Sullivan[edit]

Hi. I recently made a request at WikiProject Thoroughbred racing to help improve Silky Sullivan. I don't know what those folks do, but they don't seem to be interested in working on articles. May I ask if WikiProject Equine has any interest in these types of articles? Silky and Seabiscuit are both suffering right now and need a group of editors who are willing to bring them to GA or FA-Class. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 00:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Should I remove the WikiProject Equine tag I added, or leave it be? —Viriditas | Talk 00:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Barging in, seems that WikiProject TB is sort of inactive, but go bug User:Cuddy Wifter who seems to be on pretty regular vandal patrol there. May be help there. We are trying not to duplicate efforts on the Thoroughbred tagged articles, and Ealdgyth can give you further guidance on that, we'd prefer NOT to merge the projects as the racing project is so extensive. Montanabw(talk) 01:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I so don't want to merge the racehorses in.. in fact, i'm trying to figure out how to get the TB folks to take over the Standardbreds from Category:Standardbred racehorses. (grins) Montana's advice is good, try Cuddy. Or User:Kellsboro Jack, he and I have been passing Dash For Cash back and forth between us for a bit. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Msg to Ealdgyth[edit]

You don't have email enabled. Maybe you don't want to, but if you could for a bit, I was wanting to send you a message off wiki. FYI Montanabw(talk) 01:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Enabled. I'm trying HARD to avoid spam, I dodged a pile of it when I changed ISPs a while back and am enjoying a pretty spam free emailbox. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


No worries, I didn't take it that way at all!  :) Please continue, I've been watching your edits and have no complaints. If I ever do, I'll follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle, and try to tweak your wording to something I like better. Then you can tweak my wording, and we'll go back and forth and see if we can find a consensus that way. If not, we can take it to talk and discuss things in more depth. But so far, all is good, carry on!  :) --Elonka 03:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Jean Balukas GA review[edit]

Thank you for the review Ealdgyth. Please see article's talk page where your detailed notes are addressed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week[edit]

GA Award.png The Good Article Medal of Merit
Congratulations, I have chosen you as my GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 26th January 2008. Epbr123 (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviewer of the Month[edit]

Congratulations! Based on the weekly reviews by Epbr123, since you were reviewer for two weeks out of four, you're the Reviewer for the Month of January! There will be a feature in the next issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter on this. Please see below for a brief biographical sketch to be included; I got most of it off of your user page, but if you want anything changed, let me know before 1/31/2008. Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Award.png
Reviewer of the Month

Ealdgyth is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for January, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Ealdgyth, known in real life as Victoria Short, hails from Central Illinois, and has been editing Wikipedia since May 26, 2007. In this short time, she has made significant contributions to 9 Good Articles, including Baldwin of Exeter and Hubert Walter. Her interests in editing are in the areas of the Middle Ages, History, and horses. Outside of Wikipedia, she is starting her own photography business, and owns three horses. She likes to read science fiction, history, and geneology books. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for January!

The complete GA newsletter is delivered to the talk pages of all of the individuals listed as participants at WikiProject Good Articles. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)