User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 16

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


As dry as dishwater, but

... congrats! Sorry for responding so late. I'm on a wiki-break, but I do pop my head in every once in a while. I see it's too late for me now to add my support, but maybe that's implicit in being co-nominated (I've no clue what else that entails). Anyway, I quite like the way it turned out to be - it's dry but clear, comprehensive but not too long (which would have been a risk considering that there's so much anecdotal material that's been quarried by historians). Although I'm not confident that new students will be flocking to universities to study Hemming's Cartulary instead of Beowulf, you've done rather well. Again! Cavila (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Four awards

Four Award.svg Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Lightning Bar.
Four Award.svg Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Hemming's Cartulary.
Four Award.svg Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Carucage.

ThreeTwo in one. Ucucha 12:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Tinh Xa Trung Tam

I've done the specific points and can do a general ce run through. I hadn't bothered to do one YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Poco Pine

RlevseTalk 12:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Miss Meyers

I've had a look through, and only a couple of things struck me.

  • At the end of the first paragraph in the Broodmare and Legacy section it says "... Kid Meyers was orphaned at a month old after Miss Meyers' death in March 1963", but this is repeated at the end of the section: "Miss Meyers died in March 1963, shortly after having Kid Meyers." Could we perhaps change the first to something like "... Kid Meyers was orphaned at a month old after his mother's death"?
  • "Milpool was never raced or shown in a horse show." I find the repetition in "shown in a horse show" to be a bit awkward. Could it be changed to something like "entered in a horse show"?

Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

PS. In the infobox, why is "Racing" capitalised, but "mare" and "chestnut" aren't? Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed all of these. Now back to photos from the British Museum... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for laughing, but I can't help but notice that the FAC review is now about three times the size of the article. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Trust me, you're not the only one laughing. I'm just amazed it's garnered this much support so early... so I guess next up is either Alexander of Lincoln or Robert Burnell? (I finally got that last article I needed for RB.. the poor guy!) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I just started looking at William de Corbeil, for personal reasons I won't bore you with. Any objections to trying that one next? Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I think he was on the list I posted before Hemmings or before MM, so no. I think I'm all done with research on him... and what were the reasons? (I'm trying to see the "strange-and-unusual" angle on Bill de C, but not getting it at all...) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
All I can say without giving too much away is that his surname is very similar to the Norman origin of my own. Curiously, my wife can trace her family back to the Anglo-Saxons, which goes to show that old enmities can be forgotten. I can't say more than that though, else I'd have to kill you. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Heh. I had an ancestor on my father's side fight on the Union side at the Siege of Vicksburg in 1863. Conversely, I have an ancestor on my mother's side who fought there also, but on the Confederate side. If they can manage that...But that's not really William's "surname", you know. it just means he was from there. And I don't think I've ever heard a whiff that he might have left behind a "nephew" or three, unlike some other bishops I could name... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Corbeil isn't quite the derivation, but it's rather close, which is what caught my eye. Malleus Fatuorum 00:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Zan Parr Bar

RlevseTalk 18:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey E, can you add these to the horses portal? Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 22:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Source reliability

Long time no talk! I've been starting to work on the Trait du Nord article, with the assistance of a French editor who made it an FA on his WP, and we're wondering about the reliability of a source. The source is apparently an association for saving the breed, with their main web page here. This is a site that seems to host mostly blogs, but I'm wondering if this association would be considered credible. They have a press page here, with the first clip appearing to discuss the opening of the blog. My French is nonexistant, so it's making it a bit harder for me to judge reliability here. Could you take a look and see what you think? Thanks in advance! Dana boomer (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And I read French? LOL. I have no clue. You'd need someone who does read French for that one, sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I have modest success running stuff through Google Language; one gets enough of a translation to get the gist of it (though, apparently, in German "rider" and "heater" translate from the same word, who knew?). But the real issue is if Wikipedia has a universal blog ban or just a blog discouragement? Knowing Dana, this may be on it's way to a GA, so what will the reviewers do? (Hmmm. WWRD?) Anyway, these rare breeds are awfully tough to find things on, and the general "breeds of the world" books often are not very accurate. Montanabw(talk) 22:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not so much all wiki's against blogs as the English one. Just because something made FA on another language wiki has no bearing on its ability to do so here on English. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I was hoping that you might be able to comment more on any knowledge that you might have of general "save the breed" sites and their reliability. I know we have successfully used normal breed associations for references in GAs and FAs, but we rarely use save the breed sites. I used one in Carolina Marsh Tacky, but it wasn't based on a blog site and it has since developed a breed registry and studbook. I guess I'm just trying to figure out if a site to promote and preserve the breed (the general goal of both registries and save the breed groups) is reliable even if it is based on a blog site. So, basically, does the web host matter that much? If we can show that these people know what they're talking about (i.e., the mentions in newspapers/journals), does it matter if their webhost generally hosts amateur blogs? Dana boomer (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I would think it'd matter more if they are more professional in their approach as an organization. If they are incorporated/etc and if they have true oversight instead of being a kitchen-run kinda organization (we've all run into those!) would be more the determination. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Pitke's user page indicates s/he has at least a rudimentary knowledge of French (Pitke is Finnish) and I also know s/he has at least something of a handle on the European horse scene, at least from a Scandanavian vantage point, may be worth popping over there and seeing if s/he can help. Montanabw(talk) 02:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
They have a somewhat believable organisation, but the overall look of the site hints they don't have enough paying members to afford a "real" site, and what they've done, gained some press publicity or arranged for participation in and agricultural fair, they've done more than a year ago. The most recent activity seems to be this. Of course, you have to give them that they're working with a breed that apparently only exists in hundreds, so there's only so much you can do with that. Their information about the race itself is limited (see blog comment below), but I would trust it as long as it does not go into the very unnecessary praise so typical to even the best of breeding organisations, and of course unless more reliable sources deny their info. Pitke (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
To answer the original question on my talk page, experts? No. Good-faith amateurs with ok knowledge? Yes. Pitke (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Next time...

Next time you are in England, ping me and I will come to the British Museum with you. In spite of what I said at Johnbod's page, due to political pressure, I ended up at the Science Museum (because kids like to see balloons filled with hydrogen being lit with matches) and even then I only saw grounds: B G 1 2 3 4 5. – B.hoteptalk• 23:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The gods only know when that'll happen, unfortunately. I've got horses and kids, so getting away is an ordeal! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
It'll probably be that long (and then some) before I get there now, too. Still, I can't let your Penrith picture go to waste in the meantime, so... watch this space. – B.hoteptalk• 00:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi Ealdgyth, I know that you review the sourcing and referencing of the FA candidates, and I think you may know the answer to this. I have two different books with the same author and both published in the same year:

Now when I use them in the article and put the citations, this is how they appear in the notes section: Spice Girls, 1997. pp. 42–43. My question is what can I do to differentiate the notes from each other. Hope you can help me with this. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Use the title also so thus: Spice Girls, Girl Power pp. 42-43 or Spice Girls Spice World pp. 42-43. Or you can do 1997a and 1997b. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your answer. Frcm1988 (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gebelein predynastic mummies/GA1

Hi, I have been delayed this week with relatives. I hope to spend some time on the article this weekend, hopefully the 7-day window isn't too strict. Thanks (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not. Especially since you gave me warning! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of GA, I put up Sheila Varian. If you could possibly tip off a suitable reviewer, I'd be grateful. This is my first near-solo GA run in about two years without someone else from WPEQ taking the lead, so I'm pretty nervous about it. I'd prefer you around for hand-holding and helping me make improvements if required! Montanabw(talk) 05:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I have addressed the points raised and would be happy to re-visit and reconsider any areas you feel have been too weakly responded to, if there are new issues raised by the changes or if I have missed the point in some areas. Thanks (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Get the "undo" button oiled

WP:Today's featured article/August 12, 2010 – iridescent 14:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Gods, I'll just make it home in time... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Roger fitzReinfrid

-- Cirt (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Lawyers and judges

I've just seen the fantastic string of DYKs you've been churning out; not that anyone needs my approval, but well done! I'm actually finishing off a couple of lists which, when done, will mean we have accounts of every superior court judge in England and Wales pre-1875. This is following on from my article work, which means we now have full, properly referenced articles on all of said superior courts (two GAs and an FA so far, out of the four applicable). Would you be interested in helping out on the redlink-filling side of this project? Ironholds (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I might be when I get home from this trip should be back Thursday night. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Let me know where the redlinks are from? List/article? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for John of Tynemouth

RlevseTalk 06:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Fram photograph

One of your Fram photographs has a place of honour in the Fridtjof Nansen article which I am currently working on. It has been commented upon. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Hurricane Edith (1963)

Just a heads up, you reviewed that for GA over a week ago, but you never revisited it (pass/fail). The article hasn't been touched since you reviewed it. As I was going to fail it before seeing your review, I was wondering what you wanted to do. --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I give them 8 days. I'll double check it in the morning, and if it's not been touched then, I'll fail it in the morning. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The Judd School

Hi Ealdgyth, I'm thinking of taking the above article to FAC soon, but I was wondering if you could give a quick pre-FAC sources review, and let me know if there are any problems. I've run it through the link check, and there are three green re-directs, but I'm not really sure what this means or how to fix it? Tom (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

William T. Porter

Hi, I've reviewed this good article nominee and left a few little comments on the review page. Thanks, Aiken 19:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis

Did you ever, btw, get a hold of Hudson's two volumes? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did. The hefty photocopies are sitting on my "pile of crap to get to"... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Bull run dam descent.jpg <font=3> Thanks again for your helpful sources review at FAC. Bull Run River made featured article today. Finetooth (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Bull run lake and mount hood.jpg


Sheila Varian has been languishing at GA since the 6th. Is 10 days over the top, or typical? Is it appropriate for me to ask you to nudge someone outside of WPEQ to give it a peek? (Or, if you think it sucks and isn't ready, tell me now and I'll deal with it that way too!) Thanks muchly. How have you been doing, anyway? Sounds like you are pretty busy! Montanabw(talk) 04:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's actually a short amount of time to wait. THe typical wait is about a month, so paitence, paitence. it's probably best to wait for someone outside the horse project to look at it, so that they can make sure it makes sense to non-horsepeople. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
OK. I've thought about helping with the backlog of other stuff, but I'm rather intimidated by the thoroughness of review these days, is there a link to anything that is a helpful guide to the new and improved GA standard? (The GA page lists criteria, but I know there has been shifts in how it's applied -- but I last reviewed a GA nom, well, the last time I submitted a GA nom all by myself, at least two years ago...). Montanabw(talk) 16:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
If you want to check out some reviews - I think Malleus and I have a good grasp on the criteria. Some of my recent ones are listed at User:Ealdgyth/Works In Progress#GA, not sure where Malleus lists his. While I like having Philchra do my articles, his tend to be a bit ... rigourous and perhaps aimed a bit above GA level. I have a cheat sheet at User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet too. One thing I did notice on Sheila, your lead is too short. You'll want to expand it. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
My list is on my user page. You're right about the lead, that was going to be the first point I made. Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Get used to backlog. 1-2 months is typical. Spamming user requests usually gets you "can't, busy", so nothing to do but pack up and work on something elsewhere. You might want to try Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Mentors, and Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. Sorry to kick in I'm here from the issue below. I've no experience reviewing, but I have plenty nominating (7 GANs so far). :) ResMar 19:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't really be bothered to buckle down to writing anything so I'll do the GA review. Bad luck. Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks all, especially Malleus, and you're probably right about the lead, that's always my bugaboo. I may need some well-aimed kicks to get my direction set. Montanabw(talk) 22:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


Would this be considered a reliable reference in an FAC in respect to Lake Waiau being the 7th heighest in the USA? Thanks, ResMar 19:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Not unless you can show that the author's a world expert in geography or mountainology (is that a science?) ... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
He looks like a mountaineer based on the site. All this stuff about carrying heavy cameras and equipment up to the top. I don't think that's a science though :) ResMar 23:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Need your historical expertise

William Cragh is proving to be quite a fascinating story, although I haven't really done all that much with it yet. I haven't quite got my head around the idea of measuring the corpse to St Cantilupe, which was key to the papal investigation into his canonisation, but I'm getting there. I'm pretty confident I could produce a decent article based on the Bartlett book but I'm curious to know if there are any other important sources that should be consulted, and I was certain that you'd know, even though I appreciate that the 13th century is a little too modern for your taste. Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll dig a bit. The best resource is something I can't get to any more... check Thomas' article in the ODNB and there should be a link on the side of the article to the "Bibliography of British and Irish History". You may be able to get to it, it should give you some stuff on Thomas, which of course will include information on Cragh. Jancey's edited volume on Thomas may have stuff also. I'll do a bit more digging. Obviously, Google Scholar is your friend also. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I'd not thought of checking Thomas's ODNB entry, I'll do that now. Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • One article which you should definitely consult, as it's not by Bartlett and thus may differ from his interpretation.
  • One by Bartlett that's in a "popular" history mag

Ealdgyth - Talk 21:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

    • That Hanska article certainly looks like it might put a different spin on the witness testimonies, but I'm not about to spend $20 to find out, not until the pay rates here improve anyway. I think I may abandon William to his fate. Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I can pick it up for you in pdf the next time I go up to U of I. You might check at John Rylands or the U of Manchester to see if they've got journal access you can get there. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I'll check to see if either library allows plebs like myself access; should have done that before really. My own university is a long way off though, so I can't claim any alumni "rights" there. Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Well, my alumni status would be in Houston, which is even more of a long way off than yours, I'm betting. Luckily, U of I lets me slum ... and even granted me check-out privileges... which was probably pretty dumb of them. Rylands' should be a good source, if they'll let you in, they are one of the "names" in medieval research, for that matter U of Manchester is too. You could always pop down to the British Library too... (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
            • John Rylands does allow what they call external members, but it costs £30 a year for reference access and £88 for borrowing access. As I say, until the pay rates here go up ... Malleus Fatuorum 00:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've put copies of both the Hanska article and the Bartlett one here. Let me know if you need any others, or alternatively post a request at WP:REX. Dr pda (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I'm seriously impressed! Don't really know how to thank you. That Hanska article is a really good counterpoint to Bartlett's book, so maybe I won't abandon William to his fate after all. Thank you so much Dr pda. Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
A happy coincidence of being online at the time you two were discussing this, plus access to electronic versions of both of the publications through my university. Doing this sort of thing over at WP:REX has been my main wikipedia contribution for the past several months while I try to find time to finish off the research for Epikleros, which I rashly promised Ealdgyth I would help with ... two years ago! Dr pda (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten... (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


What about TravelMuse? Specifically this. ResMar 21:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking ... not so much? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Stupid tourist links. Researching Hawaii is so hard sometimes, flood of tourism links...ResMar 22:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Dunstable Swan Jewel

At your command... :) Not just a pretty thing to pin on, as you'll see. I might add a bit more on technique. Thanks again for the photos. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

FAC sources reviews

Just to let you know I'm going away for six days after tonight, so I will be temporarily absent from source reviewing at FAC. Any that you really don't want to do you can leave for me when I return, or others can do them. I will try and bring the page up to date before I go, but there are distractions (PR backlog, TFA vandals, packing a suitcase, etc). Brianboulton (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll get to the FAC stuff later today or tomorrow so go deal with PR, TFA and that pesky suitcase. Enjoy your trip! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject FACT suggestion for reference evaluation.

After reading your wonderful User:Ealdgyth/FAC, Sources, and You, I was wondering if you could have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check#Suggestion for reference evaluation. and comment on whether you think it could be of value. -- Jeandré, 2010-08-21t01:42z

I'm not sure what exactly the point is, honestly. You are aware that in the FA process, there is no requirement that every sentence be footnoted�/referenced, that if a series of sentences are all sourced to the same source, they can be referenced by just putting the footnote/reference at the end of the last sentence in the series, right? So counting how many sentences are cited isn't a very good way to judge how well an article is referenced. Nor is there any requirement that something be "easily" verifiable. We actually preference, on some subjects, offline sources. And in some subjects, non-English souces will be the best sources. FA is all about finding the best possible sources, not how many footnotes we stick on or whether we can find online ones. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


FYI [1] - The BM team are still at it, so I hope something will come of these. Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thankee much, Johnbod. I need to get back to work on the pictures, but RL work has me pretty swamped. I did notice earlier today that Bosworth Psalter is a redlink... you want it or should I put it on my list of "to get to someday"? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I probably won't do it, but get the images up & someone might. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Nah, ran across it while working over Deusdedit of Canterbury. No images, unfortunately. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
File:Britishmuseumportlandfontside.jpg - for ya'll. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


Hey, sorry to bother you again, but Sandy, well, just go here. ResMar 15:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Scan size for uploads

I'd be very grateful if you could advise here. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

orh herro

Do you know anything about the Doom book, particularly Alfred's definition of treason? I have a source which says that this book defined treason until 1351, I just wanted to double-check it before I added it to Hanged, drawn and quartered. Parrot of Doom 20:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You want to consult Patrick Wormald's The Making of English Law: King Alfred to the Twelfth Century. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very muchly. :) I found a corroborating source but its best to find an authority. Parrot of Doom 20:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hugh Foliot

Me again. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ship sources

I am unconvinced on, and concerned that ship articles are dominating FAC to the point that they are just not getting independent review, and have frequent prose and sourcing issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not totally convinced either, but it's a "leave it to others" to fight out also kinda thing. Generally if I'm convinced, I say that I am leaning reliable, but I haven't been convinced yet. The problem is that its been accepted in the past, so it's harder to say "no, it doesn't work" now... I can't say I'm happy about the ships using the DANFS text without attribution either, quite honestly. But, I'm like utterly swamped in RL right now, and that's got to figure into how much I'm willing to fight over things, quite honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Isn't there someone at MilHist WP who would be more than glad to charge in on this? They were certainly fussy enough when Dana took HIWWI to FA? Montanabw(talk) 17:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Alt and stuff

Hi E, could you be so kind as to peek at the ALT text I just added to the Sheila Varian article and comment and/or feel free to tweak it if you want!?! I want the alt text there no matter what next steps (I do understand its value, just am not very good at it). I can't decide if it's worth the trouble of trying to take this to FA or not, would also appreciate your candid (yes, candid is OK!) assessment of where I may run into trouble if I did do so. If sourcing is going to be an issue, I'll have concerns, as absent access to back issues of the Arabian Horse World published in the 80s and 90s, may not be able to find much more than what's there (though if you can help, I'm interested!) I tried to find second sources to doubly verify stuff on their web site, but sometimes I also just shrugged and figured that a person is their own authority on their own life, though I am aware that WP:PRIMARY could raise its ugly head... anyway, thoughts and comments welcome. Montanabw(talk) 18:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to get to this in the next few days. U of I may have back issues of the Times and/or the World (may not also, haven't looked, honestly). RL is like a bear at the moment though. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
RL?? You and me both! I'm hiding here to avoid RL! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 19:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick question, I know you're busy

If you're uncertain about an exact year of birth, but you know that someone was born between, say 1575 and 1582, what's the correct way of representing that in the article's lead? Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Historians would use the shorthand "b. 1575X1582" but that's very obscure for most folks. I'd say "born between 1575 and 1582" and call it good. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Malleus Fatuorum 02:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK Papal judge-delegate

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Papal judge-delegate 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! -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Simon of Southwell

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

William de Corbeil

I'm just about done with old William now, just a couple of points. I have a feeling that the lead is just a tad on the short side, and I don't really like this: "... put a college of regular canons at the church of St. Gregory's". Could it be changed to something like "installed a college of regular canons"? Malleus Fatuorum 15:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to add anything you feel is missing to the lead, and your phrasing is fine. (I'm wrestling with the bug reporting software for my "other-other" job and the day is NOT going well...) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and I'll be co-noming you on this one, you've done a LOT of the heavy lifting, etc. So if you have plans for other FACs, let me know so I can nom it when you won't be at FAC and I won't destroy your plans. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've expanded the lead a bit. There really isn't a great deal to say about dear old Bill, is there, but I think it's more in proportion to the rest of the article now. Kind of you to think of co-nominating me Ealdgyth, but I don't really feel as if I've done enough to deserve it, just moved some bits around. Anyway, I've got one article at FAC right now, but nothing ready to go after that. Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Old Bill (that's a slang expression for the police here in God's own country) seems to have been a tougher nut to crack at FAC than I'd imagined. Next time you pick one. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's the length, honestly. I've noticed the "shorter" articles get supports a lot faster. Probably nothing for a week or two until my life gets a bit less hectic (Huge deadline on the 1st). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
You might well be right. In the meantime I've got one that I've been havering about nominating at FAC for too long now, so we'll see how that goes. I was also quite pleased to get what I think is possibly the first GA for a hangman the other day. I think I may have found my genre: witches and executioners. Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Good luck with the park, and the hangman was very nice... going to go to FA with him too? My next choices are from: Ralph d'Escures, Walter de Coutances, Alexander of Lincoln, Robert Burnell, or William Warelwast. All bishops, unfortunately. I should probably get another two or three horses up to GA status to give me some variety, but... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't my intention to take Calcraft beyond GA, but I think I might try him out at FAC after I've done a bit more rooting around for sources. One thing I've always thought is important is to set some kind of a standard for articles of a particular type, as you've done with your medieval bishops; maybe I can do something similar with hangmen. Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Osbert de Bayeux

The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hurricane Edith

Sorry about not getting back to you about the changes in the Hurricane Edith GA. I was talking a wikibreak and have just returned so I'll fixes the problems and renominate it. Regards, Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 17:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Covered many of the issues, but there are still some that I have to tackle. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 18:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


I meant to do this earlier, but thanks for pointing me to a source that showed me how to create cites within footnotes. I appreciate it. GregJackP Boomer! 04:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Deusdedit of Canterbury

RlevseTalk 12:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of English in an article

Hello. As long as I understood from your user page, you are an American English speaker. If you can, please take a loot at this article - I've nominated it for GA status (rev - nom), but there is one last obstacle, and that is the simultaneous use of different variations of English. Some parts of the article use American English, while others use British English. I'm a near-native speaker of the language, but I use different variations at the same time, therefore I would ask you to standartize this article to American English, if you have the proper time and if you want to, of course.

I'll be looking forward to your reply, thanks. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 15:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Malleus Fatuorum 15:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely better with Malleus doing it than me. At this point, I use favour more than favor and all that. I think my spelling is half Brit. (Definitely Oxford English!) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Well that was quick ! Many thanks. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 16:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Papal judge-delegate

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


I've reviewed William of Wrotham; let me know if you'd like the additional source. Ironholds (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Travel time by horse

Hi. I posted a query which Nev1 suggests you may be able to answer. I will repeat it here.

Strange request. Do you have a reliable reference which would help me determine communication times in the 1800's? I would like to determine how long it would take a messenger on horseback to travel 24 miles in 1800 then a detatchment of 18 men from the dragoon of guards on horseback to return. Extrapolating from this site suggests that the messenger may gallop at 30 mph and the dragoons return at a canter/lope at 10 mph thus a three-hour journey. However, (a) that site is not RS and (b) I could be reading this all wrong

There was no semaphore route between the two English towns concerned --Senra (Talk) 23:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It would all depend on the circumstances. The 30mph presupposes being able to hand off tired horses in some sort of post system. It would depend on the roads, quality of horseflesh, etc. If you're using the same horse, you don't canter/lope, you trot and walk. Canter is very hard on the horse and a good ground covering trot is much more efficient. I can't really think of a source off the top of my head, but maybe some of the horse folks will see this and have an answer. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Jumping in here. Today's top 30-mile endurance horses (which are lightly loaded, well conditioned horses) regularly do 30 miles in under 3 hours during the peak of the season. Some are closer to 2.5 hrs. This is mostly at a fast trot, as Ealdgyth says, and this is dependent on the horse being rested before, well conditioned and the quality of the terrain. This, however, shows a speed, even for a well conditioned horse, of much less than 30 mph. Again though, as Ealdgyth says, if the rider was handing the horse off at specific distances, the speed definitely increases. Heavily laden dragoons (if always on the same horse) are most likely not going to be able to make 10 mph and it quite possibly could have taken them several hours longer. Dana boomer (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Assuming the query relates to this, you also have the issue of road quality to consider; the fens weren't (and still aren't) noted for their high-quality transport infrastructure. Even today, AA route planner gives a travel time of 38 minutes for the journey in question by car, and a car goes a good deal faster than a horse. – iridescent 12:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
It does relate to that article yes. Bury St Edmunds is in Suffolk and Ely to Bury is mainly through Norfolk, so most of the journey is not through the The Fens; but yes, I take your point about the road quality, which is why I specified 1800's. So, to summarise what we have so far. We speculate 10 mph at a fast trot for the messenger, with a possibility of one or two changes of horses on the way and the returning heavily laden dragoons at about 2 mph? Still not sourced but we are getting there, thank you all --Senra (Talk) 14:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
An average horse walks at 4 MPH (slightly faster than a human) and trots at 8-12 MPH. Galloping at 30 mph is racing speed. For more info, send an email to User:Gwinva (she's not on wiki a lot these days, but she's around) She researched this issue extensively when we were working on the Horses in Warfare/Middle Ages set of articles. She actually tracked down some timelines for actual historically verifiable expeditions. Here's some of our chat on the topic and her sources: User:Montanabw/Gwinva-Medieval_Sandbox#Medieval_horse_2 and User:Montanabw/Gwinva-Medieval_Sandbox#Me again. In short, note where she found this: "Compares that with 19th century cavalry horses expected to carry 28 stone (including rider) reduced to 21 stone in Boer war. Horses expected to carry that load for 25 miles a day." You may also glean useful info from her article Horses in the Napoleonic Wars. Montanabw(talk) 06:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Brilliant, thank you. I will look into these. I will not bother Gwinva unless I really need to look further. Thank you for the links --Senra (Talk) 13:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


How sad, Acca still includes Catholic Encyclopedia stuff. Has to go! Do you have any designs on Hexham's finest or can I steal him? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Steal away. Hexham is WAAYYY down my list. And most of the saints are even further... (minus William of York who I consider an "accidental" saint). Ealdgyth - Talk 01:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Besides, wouldn't Stephanus say that Wilfrid was Hexham's finest? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Akira Kurosawa

Thank you for your comments on the Akira Kurosawa article which is currently a featured article candidate.

1) Removed ALL CAPS in those two cases, which I believe were the only ones. 2) The Eugene Register-Guard reference was a news, not a web ref: I have made the change (thanks for catching that). 3) The refs that were publisher-less have had publishers added. 4) "Web Site" is the title of Toho's foreign-language (Japanese) site, and the title just is what it is: I can't arbitrarily change it. 5) Consistently changed references to remove "Univ." and spell out "University". 6) Many books don't list place of publication on their title or copyright pages, and I'm not about to make guesses: I believe location must be optional in a book reference, not mandatory. 7) From the external references, I deleted the IMDB and TSPDT links, as you suggested. 7) The "Further reading" section was very carefully considered: the Shakespeare books (by Buchanan, Davies and Leonard) have significant content about Kurosawa because of the latter's Shakespeare-inspired films, Throne of Blood and Ran (much of the information that allowed me to include the Shakespeare volumes came from the website, which is *not* a superficial fansite, but engages in significant scholarly inquiry, and is thus authoritative); Noel Burch has a very significant chapter on Kurosawa which was nonetheless not used in any of my references; and the appropriateness of the Cowie and Dresser references is self-explanatory: therefore, I am retaining all the volumes cited in "Further reading". 8) As far as the introductory section is concerned, I'm sorry, but I have a pet peeve against articles that contain intro sections that I think are too long; as a devoted reader of Wikipedia, when the article is as detailed as mine is, I don't want the intro section to be long as well; I want it to be concise and succinct. Every single statement made in those three paragraphs is one that no reputable film scholar would dispute, yet they are all later explained in the main text and supported with references for non-scholars. I don't think that section should be "beefier": I think it's just right.

Are you now prepared to support the article as a Featured Article? Do you have further comments or questions? Please let me know.

You wrote:

* Comments -
* Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they re in the original.
* Current ref 241 ... this is a newspaper article, and should be formatted as such, not as you currently have it "Eugene Register-Guard..."
* Current ref 251 (Battle beyond the stars..) is lacking a publisher. Also what makes this a reliable source?
* Current ref 252 (Powers...) lacks a publisher. Also what makes this a reliable source?
* Current ref 253 (Skiyaki Western...) lacks a publisher. Likewise what makes this reliable?
* Current ref 254 (The Clone Wars..) lacks a publisher
* Current ref 256 (TSDT...) lacks a publisher
* Likewise ref 257 (IMDB)...
* Likewise ref 258 (WEBSITE). And it should have a better title, I'd think
* Likewise 259 (KUROSAWA FILM STUDIO)...
* Likewsie 261 (AFC...).
* Likewise 262 (ONline MBA...)
* Likewise 263 (FILMS...)
* Likewise 266 (AK100..)
* What makes a reliable source?
* We don't use abbreviations such as Univ. or UP in our references. Consistency is important, you have Univ. Press of Mississippi and University Press of Mississippi, be consistent.
* Likewise, consistency on using place of publication on books, either use them always or not at all.
* Suggest culling some of the external links - especially any that are used as refs (No need for the IMDB links or the TSPDT link, as you're using them as refs) External links should ADD information not contained in the article, not just exist as a place to add information.
* I'd also question the lack of use of some of the further reading. Just from the title, I'd think the Martinez would be very useful and helpful to replace some of the dodgy refs I question above. I'd also think the Sorenson would be vital for aspects of his career. And many of the others would be great for themes and motifs over his career.
* One further comment. For the sheer size of the article, I'd think the lead would be ... beefier. It really is skimpy for the proze size of the article text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanexpert (talkcontribs) 17:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to sign my last message. Dylanexpert (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll check these in a few, but generally I don't support or oppose, I just check sources for reliablity and that they are consistently formatted. Only very rarely will I oppose over sourcing issues (and in this case, it's not likely I would, as nothing was serriously wrong. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
To your previous message on the Featured Articles candidates page, I wrote the following:
Okay, I got it. And you have a good idea. So I took the Martinez book out of Further reading and put it in sources. Then, for Battle Beyond the Stars, I removed the IMDB reference and replaced it with a Martinez reference. So that's two issues solved. I changed the reference to the Eugene Register-Guard (newspaper) so that now it reads correctly in italics. I dropped locations from the book references... though frankly, it still seems silly and totally unnecessary to me. I eliminated the whole passage about the "Sukiyaki Western" (which I never really felt comfortable with including anyway) so questions about the reliability of its source are no longer relevant. "What makes a reliable source?" - I really don't know how to answer that question. What is the standard of reliability? You, subjectively, say that IMDB is not a reliable source; I, equally subjectively, say that it (mostly) is, or at least is more accurate and complete than any other film reference source that I've ever encountered... though I eliminated the IMDB reference that you were dissatisfied with.
So what is the objective standard to this very subjective question of "authority"? For example: in the field of Japanese film studies in English, no name is more highly regarded than Donald Richie's. It's not an exaggeration to say that he really began the field of Japanese film studies as a discipline: he wrote the book (actually two or three) on Japanese film, as well as on Kurosawa and Ozu. And yet I know of quite a few errors (not questions of interpretation, but simple misstatements of fact) in his work, and if I had a mad impulse to sabotage my own article, I could quote or paraphrase those erroneous statements, cite Richie's work in the references, and nobody but scholars or hardcore fans would be the wiser. So what is an airtight "authority"... and how does one go about proving it?
You wrote: "Further bits. You misunderstood, I'm not questioning the further reading items inclusion, I'm questioning why they aren't used as sources. Several of the sources questioned above on reliablity need addressing still. And you can drop locations from the book refs if you like, that's one valid option." Dylanexpert (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
As for, I probably cannot call it "reliable" according to Wikipedia's stringent standards, as the site's own About page modestly asserts that it is "not definitive." However, there is no such authoritative source that I can find that "proves" the assertions on the "On home video" paragraph. The vast majority of sites that mention Kurosawa DVDs want the reader to buy them, or are Top 10 lists, etc. I have always been uncomfortable anyway with the mention of all the DVD brand names in the para. So I propose just editing the paragraph down to the first two sentences, "All thirty films directed by Kurosawa are available on DVD worldwide, most of them from more than one distributor and in more than one region code. His movies are also becoming increasingly available on Blu-ray." These are simply facts: there is no single scholarly source in the Internet that "proves" them. Is this satisfactory to you?
You wrote:
"To determine the reliability 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. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Also note that since that dispatch was written, the standards for FA have changed to require "high quality" sources. IMDB isn't just me, it's a consensus from the WP:RSN, which is a good spot to go to for questions about sources. As for the locations, it's a consistency issue, making the citations consistent with all the other citations used in the article." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanexpert (talkcontribs) 12:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I have made the change and saved it. As far as I can see, all your objections (except debatable aesthetic ones) have now been addressed. Thanks for your input!
You wrote on the Featured Article candidates page:
"It's perfectly acceptable for something like this to use Amazon or a similar large retailer to show that the DVDs are available." Dylanexpert (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Pope Gregory I

Hi Ealdgyth :-) Due to my evil nature, I was carefully scrutinizing Malleus' talk page hoping to find some flimsy pretext on which to ban him forever for something, when I casually saw this. Now, jokes apart, your apparent interest in the topic is the reason that made me take the pretty rude initiative (excuse me for this) of letting you know that I too have been tinkering with the idea of trying to make a GA or even maybe a FA of Gregory, as I too have some literature on the topic, like Richards, that can turn useful and in general I'm moderately knowledgeable of the period. That said, for full disclosure, you must know that I'm pretty much a lazy bastard, especially compared to editing rythms like yours; and if this this wasn't enough, my writing talents suck and without Malleus' help my last article would have miserably shipwrecked. Also important, for reasons very close to yours I'm wary of high profile articles that may be a source of attraction to POV pushers, so probably left on my own I would have left the article aside for some Lombard king; but for a joint push, it may be worthwile. So if next month or next year you feel like giving it a try to make it a FA, just let me know. Ciao, and sorry for being so wordy. Aldux (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd need Greggie boy for any WP:Featured Topic on the Gregorian mission that wasn't just on the members of the mission (which currently are a featured topic). But I'd have to do the various kinglets too, which has kinda kept me from the task. And honestly, right now, our Lombard coverage sucks worse than our medieval English bishops, so probably a few more Lombard kings would be good. For that matter, Visigothic/Ostrogothic/Vandals/Merovingian/etc. royalty coverage sucks in general. There is SOOO much medieval topic coverage that could be improved, it's not even funny. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Sadly you're all too correct :-( While some pretty nice work has been done on Anglo-Saxon England, the Continent is in an utterly pathetic condition which leaves little hope of salvation. Sigh. I've got to confess I'm becoming quite ridicolously resentful of the ease old ironclads, cruisers and battleships seem to collect a great interest, while the dark ages aren't apparent cool enough. Oh well, as for me, I'll now deal with Alboin's successor Cleph, I guess. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Simon Mepeham
John de Ufford
UFC Undisputed 2010
Simon Langham
Thomas Langton
Simon Islip
Thomas Cobham
Stigand of Selsey
John Merbecke
Eadwulf of Lindsey
Henry Marshal
Imran Khan (singer)
William Whittlesey
Huonville, Tasmania
Frederick Cornwallis
Macrina the Younger
William Magee (archbishop of York)
Eadwig of England
Abbot of Glastonbury
Stafford House College
Add Sources
Henry Deane
John Kemp
Putta (bishop of Hereford)
Canterbury Golf Club
Women in Ancient Rome
Simon of Dammartin
Philip of Poitou
Harold Godwinson
Diocese of Canterbury

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 Nettrom (talk), 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) 06:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Grace Sherwood - Witch of Pungo

After being urged by Malleus, Ucucha, etc, I'm listed this at FAC. If you'd look it over, esp for refs, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. RlevseTalk 20:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mr San Peppy

RlevseTalk 00:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Skipper W

-- Cirt (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1962 National League tie-breaker series/archive1

Heyo! Left you a small question about how you'd like me to fix a source here. Thanks for the review! Staxringold talkcontribs 15:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing question - conference papes

Hi Ealdgyth. I have a question from an FAC on whether a conference paper, which has not been otherwise published, is a high quality reliable source. If you have the time and inclination, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Conference_papers, please? Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Karen, if you can search Awadewit's archives, I asked her that once, but I'm pretty sure it was before we tightened 1c. Also, depends on the field (WP:MEDRS would reject it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A present you can't refuse

Isn't he great?

In case you haven't noticed, Penrith Hoard and Waterloo Helmet are two more articles kicked off by your photos. I've started taking my own with my new camera-from-the-supermarket. Now I've read the manual, some of them, once edited, surprise me (Celtic brooch has loads). But we all know quality when we see it! Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

FAC source reviews

Glad to see you back on the page, though I've enjoyed doing a few that weren't either music albums, films or baseball. I'll do 'em, but just leave me the odd goody now and then, there's a dear. Brianboulton (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I DID do a baseball one just now! Let me know if there are ones you particularly want me to do. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, if it's opera I'll probably have written it, so that's all yours. I'm not really complaining, I just like a bit of variety. I'll do bishops, of course. Brianboulton (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Another Abbey vs Priory

Hi, Could you confirm that Wigmore Priory is different from Wigmore Abbey, please? Cavrdg (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
And Wormesley Priory is _not_ different from Wormesley Abbey, thanks.Cavrdg (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Wigmore Abbey was a priory first, and was founded about 1131 at Shobdon. It was an abbey by 1172 when it moved to Wigmore. So those two articles should be merged. (The refs for that are Knowles, et. al. Heads of Religious Houses 940-1216 pp. 189-190 and Smith & London Heads of Religious Houses 1216-1377 pp. 484-485. I see nothing to suggest that Wormesley is other than one foundation. (Both editions of Heads list it as one index entry). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


Blah blah blah thank you for your comments blah blah I have responded blah blah sad that even though I knew you would bother me you still found so many issues blah blah the usual, hi. ResMar 21:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Maybe we're getting a bit TOO familiar with each other over at FAC, hm? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps. Scroll down to User talk: you don't get as much Mario-spam as Tusk and Cer do, but you're still on it :) ResMar 01:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
In fact, I can pump a few more meaningless comments into this discussion that would make that number rise some more :). Like this one for example. Muhahahaha! ResMar 01:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Not to be annoying or anything, but can you check back...? ResMar 23:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
It will probably be Monday before I can, as I'm busy all weekend with an art fair. I just got in, I'm exhuasted, and have to be up early in the morning to do the same all over again. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok sure =) ResMar 02:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed all of the sources you cited. You must have misinterpreted my comments (re: "sheesh"): I didn't mean to be pushy. A query is not a demand. ResMar 21:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I think I've handled your last point, now: please do take a look =) ResMar 03:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

PASE and manual labour

Hi again, you will have noticed no doubt that PASE reorganised their database a bit and modified the URLs so that we end up here with a massive number of dead links. I know you don't trust bots and that you're mighty fond of correcting things by hand, but I've ignored all that and requested a bot to do the fixes for us instead. See WP:Bot requests#External links PASE. Cavila (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me! I've been dreading fixing all those... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Right up your creek?

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ormulum/archive1 Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Manuscript studies make my head hurt. And I don't think I've ever heard of that work, sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

How to cite a reliable [REDACTED]

I swear I get all choked up when I can ask you a question that is completely out of left field.

Source. Article. --Moni3 (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd base it off of Template:Cite report myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Well that, yes, but what would you title it? --Moni3 (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Got another question: this looks to be self-published. Thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
"Prosecutive Report" would work for the first, and the second is indeed self-published. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review for Poco Pine

Hello. I've review your good article nomination for Poco Pine and placed it Good article on hold on hold pending the addressing of a couple of minor prose issues. Let me know when they are addressed and I will be happy to pass the article. You can find the review here. Grondemar 01:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I replied on the review page, but I'll just note here also that I'm going to be on the road until Tuesday, so I'll get to those small issues on Tuesday once I'm home! Ealdgyth - Talk 10:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Domesday Book

Thank you for fixing my edit. I should have looked at that more closely. 2tuntony (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Magnum Rolle peer review

Would you mind reviewing Magnum Rolle at Wikipedia:Peer review/Magnum Rolle/archive1? I have worked hard on this article and want to bring it to featured status! ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 22:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Robert of Chichester
Charles Baring
William James (bishop)
Edmund Lacey
Thomas Kempe
Philip Morgan (archbishop)
Henry Villiers
William Mount (Isle of Wight MP)
John Gilbert (bishop)
William Gray (bishop)
Handley Moule
Henry Marshal
Roger Andrewes
John Chishull
Edward Chandler (bishop)
Ralph Baldock
William George Mount
Richard Neile
N. T. Wright
Richard Chartres
Victoria of the United Kingdom
Lord High Treasurer
Selsey Bill
Add Sources
Henry VII of England
Michael Ramsey
Walter de Gray
George Duffield, Jr.
Canterbury Golf Club
Harold Godwinson
The Chichester Cathedral Choristers' Association
Æthelred the Unready

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 Nettrom (talk), 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) 23:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Jersey Act

I finally got my arse in gear and checked The Times archive, which has quite a bit of interesting stuff. Unfortunately I can't understand all of it as I'm unfamiliar with horsey-speak. One thing I did understand though is that there was an earlier 1872 Jersey Act; nothing to do with horses, but a company set up to build and operate a railway line servicing a quarry. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

So what's confusing and needs explaining? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I think I'm OK with it now. I found an interesting article in The Times dated 1939 that appears to give the standard English view of the Act. Basically it was propaganda to suggest that it was designed to protect British or Irish breeders, and Lord Jersey was far too noble and unworldly to have had any such unworthy motivation; he and the Jockey Club were simply trying to maintain the purity of registered Thoroughbreds. In fact the writer goes on to claim that that the Act affected many English breeders as well, such as "the famous Mayboy strain" and Lord Coventry's winning horses.
PS. Was the winner of the 1914 Derby (Durbar) male or female? Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm mostly lurking. This is a very cool article and fun to read! If this is heading for an FA push, it may be worth slightly expanding (at least in passing)to note what the problem was with the American Civil War and TB bloodlines (I think it has something to do with many apparent Thoroughbreds losing documentation in the tumult of war, and possibly some Arab or other blood getting mixed in??) Also, I am not certain if UK legalese always parallels US, but one Malleus edit would be incorrect legal jargon here, so I tweaked it. But if I'm wrong, just revert. Montanabw(talk) 22:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The rule had nothing to do with the law, so I've reverted your revert. ;-) It was just a policy introduced by the publishers of the UK's stud book; the term "Jersey Act" was invented by its detractors. Malleus Fatuorum 22:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
LOL, rule, law, same diff in this context, but not a big deal. To me, "retrospective" means looking back in a nostalgic or academic sense, as in "a retrospective look at the works of Charles Dickens" "Retroactive" means to be activated or to act in a time prior, whether an Act of Parliament or an organization's rule change. Not a big deal if it's important to you, but in that context, "retrospective" sounded like the wrong nuance. It's Ealdgyth's article, and I'll not spat, it's her work. Montanabw(talk) 04:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't feel particularly strongly about it, but the term "retrospective legislation" is a common one even in the US.[2] In context I think both words are pretty much synonymous, meaning "applying to the past", but "retrospective" is the word I've seen most often applied to back-dated legislation. I'll leave it for Ealdgyth to decide. Malleus Fatuorum 14:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
LOL, Malleus, you're a dear, but your example is precisely my point: There is a retrospective analysis, but a retroactive applicability, that's the nuance. And though I don't like this bandied about a lot on wiki (hence noting it on Ealdgyth's page where it will soon be archived into obscurity) I actually am a real attorney here in America. So I AM right to that extent, not that it matters in the article itself! (LOL and noogies at myself for being very anal and insisting on the last word) Montanabw(talk) 02:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've finished adding a bit of British perspective now, and apart from a final copyediting look through tomorrow I think I'm about done. What do you think? Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I did some ref cleanup to make the ones you added match the rest, but otherwise looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't notice at the time that you don't always use templates, sorry about that. Something else I forgot to mention though. As this wasn't an Act of Parliament I'm not terribly happy about calling it an "Act", or even an "act", which just looks strange. Any opinion? Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I've just noticed as well that we've lost the publication dates for The Times articles. Is that deliberate? Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
They are there, they are in the "references" section at the end with each listing. I do use templates, but only in the bibliography/sources/references section, and I use the cite family, not the citation family. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see what you're doing now. It's a style I'm unfamiliar with, even though I've looked at many of your bishops. I guess that's because not many (any?) of them had newspaper reports written about them. Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
"act" or "Act" can reference things other than UK Parliamentary action, much US legislation (including at the state level) is also referred to as an "Act." (and what's not an act is usually a resolution, then at the administrative enforcement level, a regulation, rule or policy)That said, when it's a breed organization doing what is essentially private legislation, I will take no position. But the term can, at least in theory, be broadly used to reference legislative and probably even pseudo-legislative action. And if the Jockey Club or popular parlance called it that, then I suspect it's easily sourcable, and to call it otherwise might be OR. IF the Jockey Club uses legislative language to describe its own rules and regulations, then I'd stay with its own terms. Montanabw(talk) 01:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Look, you and Ealdgyth do as you please. I was just trying to help. Malleus Fatuorum 02:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Malleus has a valid point (No scarey away the copyeditor and joint researcher here, Mont!) I think it's fine to do something like "regulation" "rule" or "so-called act" instead. It IS generally known as the Jersey Act in the US, (among the small percentage of the population that even has a clue that it ever existed!) but we should be more precise in the body of the article and make it clear that it's not really an act of parliament. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I've been trying to make two points, obviously with rather limited success. The first is that the term "Jersey Act", coined by the foreign press, was considered somewhat derogatory by the British press, and even a slight on the saintly Lord Jersey. Secondly, as it wasn't an Act of Parliament it seems absurd to apply legalese such as "repeal" to what was just a rule adopted by the publisher of a stud book. Anyhow, I'm done with the article now. Malleus Fatuorum 15:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
No harm, no foul, and I'm actually a Malleus fan! I'm also just anal. Sorry if you were annoyed with me Malleus. Good to point out that folks in the UK consider the term a bit derogatory. Ah, horse politics! Montanabw(talk) 01:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Computer issues

My hard drive in my desktop died and it's now in the shop trying to be resurected. As well as getting a new drive installed and the OS put on it. I'm going to be mostly out of touch for a bit, until I get it home again, as the laptop is not a real good "work" computer. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick consultation

Would you consider this site to be a reliable source? The context is this article, which I'm battling to save at FAR. It looks kosher to me, just wondered what your feelings were. Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's going to have to be based as much on who wrote the specific article you're looking at using as a source. It's one of those... it could be reliable, but I'd like to see it either used by scholarly sources as a source or something showing the expertise of the author of the particular piece. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Much of the data is attributed to Jan Skotnicki, a historian at the International Boxing Research Organization, but it's not clear who wrote the accompanying text, so I think I'm going to have to cut back even further on relying on that source, which I was already trying to do anyway. Thanks. Malleus Fatuorum 17:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
No worries at all. You should know (I hope!) that you're always free to bring me sourcing/etc questions. I also unearthed the Godiva book just recently, so maybe when my desktop is back in running order I'll get started on that. Maybe. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"Attributed" is not the same as "written by". Why not simply use the actual source written by the supposed author, Jan Skotnicki? That would be more reliable than some random website created arbitrarily and with questionable editorial review. -- Cirt (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Haven't you got anything better to do Cirt? Why not go and find someone to block, because believe me, my patience with you is just about worn out. Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Yet another comment focused on a contributor and not on content. -- Cirt (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Whereas your comment here about laziness wasn't at all personal, presumably because you're an administrator and always right? Can't you smell the hypocrisy?
I'm sorry to have brought this unpleasantness to your talk page Ealdgyth, and I won't be responding to Cirt here again. Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Responding briefly to Cirt's comment from the FAR - "it's in hand" to mean means that things are being questioned, not that Malleus was attempting to say I'd given support to using the source. He was just pointing out he'd asked me and that discussions were ongoing. There was no need to be so antagonistic, Malleus already indicated here that he was going to cut back on the source. FAR isnt a "battle", I thought the idea was to bring the articles up to standards, and quite frankly I wouldn't want to work on something when everything I did was constantly belittled, etc. A bit of "thanks for taking care of the those issues" would help a lot to get folks to be willing to invest time in working to bring articles up to snuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I made zero mention of any particular user in this comment [3]. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
"Responding briefly to Cirt's comment from the FAR - "it's in hand" to mean means that things are being questioned, not that Malleus was attempting to say I'd given support to using the source. He was just pointing out he'd asked me and that discussions were ongoing." - Ah okay, understood. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


I left a few comments at the talk page; it looks pretty good to me. When you're done with the comments I will have a crack at copyediting. Mike Christie (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


I've been thinking about it too; I'm starting up FA writing again and would be happy to have another crack. I'm sorry I digressed into List of works by Bede! But if you're not that excited about it I can let it drop too. I'd be happy to collaborate on something else, since are our interests do overlap somewhat. Are there any A-S ecclesiastics I could help with, or kings you'd be interested in, or some other figure you'd like to work on instead? Mike Christie (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Bede's not a bad choice, and he's certainly important enough! I'm just dreading the .. 300 some pages of photocopying ahead of me! the book is just not to be had at any decent price on any of the used booksellers, and unfortunately, it's very useful for Bede... blech. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
YIKES! Amazon: $524! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec)But if you're bored and looking for something to do... Hygeberht could use a glance at him to see whether or not it makes sense and what background might need adding, as well as a copyedit. Since Malleus has (rightly) decided to take a break, I'm without a copyeditor... which sucks. For that matter, Ralph d'Escures, Walter de Coutances, Alexander of Lincoln, and Robert Burnell all need copyedits before visiting FAC, although the research is mostly done. (Deacon, you're welcome to chime in here and point out errors also!) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I hope to see Malleus back again, but in the meantime I'm happy to chip in at copyediting, though he's much better at it than I am. I'll put those on my list and see if I can get to them soon. Mike Christie (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Obviously I hope to see him back also, but I can totally understand his desire to take a break. There is no hurry on any of those, by the way. Just more articles in my never ending pile... What's your next FAC? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Probably Venture Science Fiction, though it's at WP:RM right now waiting to be moved to the right page name. Fantastic is probably after that, though I've barely started there. Since I'm doing the magazines rather than A-S kings, some copyediting of your articles is probably good for me -- might even make me want to go back and do another king or two. I have some time today so will at least look at Hygeberht. Mike Christie (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
There's a copy on Choosebooks for $176, though it would have to ship from Germany. Do you know about A very good aggregator for books. Re Bede, just let me know -- I have something at FAC, and my next FAC is fairly close to being cued up, so I'm free if you would like to work on it or something else. Mike Christie (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Even $176 is more than I'm willing to spend for something pretty much out of my normal time period, especially when I can get the U of I's library copy (like I have now). I think Bede should wait until middle November, as I'll be past wedding and past the last art fair of the year, and have more ability to concentrate. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough; let me know when you're ready (and interested) and we'll see if we can sync up. (Your wedding? Are we going to decorate your user page in celebration?) Mike Christie (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. Mr. Ealdgyth and I are finally making it "official". Mother can quit whining (grins). Halloween afternoon, in fact. Supposed to be a "small" ceremony, but it's grown a hair, but still at home. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, congratulations. I promise not to start calling you Mrs. Ealdgyth! Have a great day. Any honeymoon planned? Mike Christie (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Holy guacamole, just saw this ! Where have I been? I hope it's a fine celebration! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, all the best! Will a medieval bishop be officiating, after all you've done for them? Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
No, just a Methodist pastor. Not even in a cathedral! Nor are there horses involved... We'll post pics somewhere. No honeymoon - second marriage for both of us, so we'll honeymoon later - maybe Yellowstone in the winter.. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations! In reference to the above—I have easy access to a lot of sources, and would be happy to check things related to medieval bishops or any other moderately interesting subject. Ucucha 02:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Congrsts, E! I hope you're really happy together :) Karanacs (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I'm slow on the uptake! Congrats! Have you done Yellowstone in winter? If not, I've got gobs of unsolicited advice -- but the short version is that I'd actually recommend West Yellowstone for lodging, access to dining variety and other amenities...Yellowstone itself has some stuff open in the winter, mostly around Mammoth, but it's dicey-- the coldest I've been in my life was Old Faithful Lodge during a late spring cold snap... it's charming and romantic only if the vintage heating systems are actually working...though Old Faithful when it's below freezing is a sight to behold if you can see through the steam... Montanabw(talk) 02:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)