User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 20

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

Harry Bassett

I've had a run through Harry Bassett and the GA review is now on hold. Not much to do. Malleus Fatuorum 18:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Dagan (bishop)

The DYK project (nominate) 08:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Liber Eliensis

Lead
  • "Traditionally the author of the work has been given as Richard or Thomas, two monks at Ely, and Richard has been identified with one official of the monastery." I'm not quite certain what that last bit actually means; what does "identified with" mean? The sentence probably needs to be split anyway, as the last bit seems to have no relation to what went before.
  • It means that there was an official of the monastery named "Richard" and that some folks have argued that this Richard the official is the same person as the Richard the traditional author. IT also means that there is no specific statement in some document of the time that ties Richard the official to Richard the traditional author. Suggestions are welcome as to how to best explain that Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Background and authorship
  • "The historian Elisabeth van Houts felt that it was written in two stages". Why the past tense? Has she changed her mind? In general I think that we ought to be using the literary present tense throughout the article; at present it jumps about a bit, sometimes using it and sometimes not.
  • Changed to "feels" - you are correct here. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "Janet Fairweather, a classicist and the recent translator of the Liber ...". That "the recent translator" seems just a little odd to me, why not "a recent translator"?
Sources
  • "... the founder and first abbess of the abbey." The phrase "abbess of the abbey" seems a bit tortured. Can we say "abbess of Ely" instead?
  • "Works more directly related to Ely were also used. The main source for this was Bishop Æthelwold of Winchester's Libellus ....". It's not clear what that "this" is referring to.
  • See if my change works a bit better. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Contents
  • "The work is traditionally divided into three books. Book I also contains a prologue and a preface". It contains a prologue and a preface in addition to what? Should the "also" just be dropped?
  • Prologue and preface are in addition to the historical content, reworked. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Influence
  • "The Liber was familiar to the 13th-century chronicler Matthew Paris, who used it along with the Chronicon Abbatiae Rameseiensis of Ramsey Abbey". Used it for what?
  • "A few bits of data in the Liber are important to historians." I'm not fond of that "bits of data" phrase. Could we recast this along the lines of "Some of the information contained in the Liber is important to historians" or similar?

Malleus Fatuorum 14:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Brian got it exactly right

Brian got it exactly right when he said that "I have said before that the value of these articles is that nowhere else is there such a body of work accessible in one place". You've produced a remarkable body of work, and it's been a privilege to be able to help in some small way. Even if I don't always spot your miscreant American English spelling. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Miscreant! Besides, how can you tell my American-misspellings from just my regular misspellings...? Seriously, thanks. It does mean something to get some praise. I see you put the gibbet up, that's another neat piece of work there, definitely not something that's covered elsewhere... good luck with it! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm still nervous about the gibbet, but then I'm nervous about every article I put up at FAC or GAN, like a mother hen. Pass or fail I think it'll be better for the experience. What gave me increased confidence was the email from the museum's collection manager, but we'll see how it pans out. Good luck with Barre as well. Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll look at the gibbet tomorrow if I get time. We do not lack for time at FAC these days. I only had time to glance at the lede but it looked interesting. And I agree with Brian, the articles most to be valued are the best resources in the world on that subject. I treasure my articles that are like that and desire more.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I've spent the day coding, or I'd be reviewing. HOpefully tomorrow will be less eyestrainish. And I've started gathering the stuff for the psycho personality of the Middle Ages article - so that'll hopefully slowly start improving. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I need to be up at 3 am as I incautiously made a 930 appointment four and a half hours from here and I'd like to have breakfast at some stage in the proceedings ... I've started work on Kenesaw Mountain Landis, and am in touch with the Hall of Fame on images. I expect it to take me at least two weeks, this is not a quick write (I'm presently up to 1893).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Becket's going to take me ages, as I absolutely despise him and studying him, but he needs to be worked over. And the major biographer of Becket is another person I don't much like ... so ... this'll be a true test of my ability to be objective. Expect a bunch of other things at FAC before Becket. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
It is hard for me to write about someone I just don't like. Sometimes I find grudging admiration. I've got Koninginnedag, a bit of an offbeat effort for me Malleus was kind enough to review waiting for an open slot at FAC, then a couple more coin articles, then I suspect Landis.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
For me it's analogous to the efforts that people took in the early 20th century to record old folk tunes. I started off here because I felt that if people knew a little bit more about the history of the area they lived in then they might treat it with a little more respect. Then it became obvious to me that so much was being forgotten generally, hence my interest in the bizarre. But Ealdgyth is doing something I will never do, create a coherent body of work. Malleus Fatuorum 01:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure doesn't feel coherent right now! I tend to lurch my way between topics... getting caught by something and pursuing it to almost obsessive lengths - look at the DYK above. I mean, in the grand scheme of things - this is a guy who is mentioned in Bede once and probably is the same saint later recorded in the 8th century, but only probably ... who but me would do something like that? Or take another article I've been working on periodically - I just got a hold of a Ph.D. dissertation from 1936 that dealt with the poem by Reginald, about an obscure Syrian monk/martyr/saint from the early years of the church - that's obsessive! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I guess that if we weren't in some way obsessive then we wouldn't be doing this. There are much more congenial ways of spending your time. I'll admit to a mini-foible though, which is that I do like to try and shock, or tell the tale of a rather ordinary concrete underpass; stuff that's not necessarily important, but shouldn't be forgotten. I always have in my mind an image of Jean Luc Picard in his quarters on the Enterprise asking his computer to do a search on Tickle Cock Bridge. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I better understand your point, Malleus. Yes she is, in a way that us dilettantes are not.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Andreacarus voalavo

Hi, Ealdgyth. After seeing that you passed as GA Andreacarus voalavo, please review some of my spiders - Phidippus clarus, Maevia inclemens and Phaeacius have gaps due to the sources' concentration on the most obvious aspects (2 colourful sex lives and one spider so lazy I can't see how it reproduces). More seriously, IMO the article on Andreacarus voalavo has so many defects that it can't be a GA, for example: --Philcha (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  • The phrasing is understandable only for mite-ologist ("acarilogists", coined from Acari). I think one of the worst examples is the use of "idiosoma" with no explanation. Idiosoma is a genus of trapdoor spiders, which obviously can't be appropiate. But Mites injurious to economic plants p. 10 (found minutes ago) is clear to me, and almost ready to insert into Andreacarus voalavo. The nom has made no effort to make the topic understandable to non-specialists. --Philcha (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • There's no zoological context for non-specialists - I found it hard going, and I got Chelicerata (about 3 levels up the taxonomic hierarchy) to GA. The articles Mite and Acari are not GA-standard, but summaries of these would make this article more fairly understandable for non-specialists.
    If you fancy a challenge, I think I could get Mite and Acari to GA-standard in 7 days for the pair, if you'll review them. --Philcha (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The heading "Taxonomy and range" is confusing, and this section also includes what little info is given about this mite's ecology. --Philcha (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Google gets me no other sources about this species. IMO Andreacarus voalavo is not ready for GA, and won't be for a few years. One symptom is the extremely detailed account of the anatomy, which is the first stage in studying a new species - partly to identify more specimens in order to study other aspects of the species. In contrast, I think a spider discovered more recently has a better chance of reaching GA standard, although I think it would be marginal. --Philcha (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I look like a spoilsport. Do you fancy my challenge? --Philcha (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

None of this falls into my understanding of the GA criteria - it covers ALL of the published information, as you say Google gives no other information, nor is it a requirement that every sentence be utterly understandable to the non-specialist. I'm certainly not an expert in biology, and I could follow most of what was in the article. I don't review math articles mainly because I don't have the math knowledge to stumble my way through it. What you're looking for here is more FA level, and it this article had appeared at FA, I'd have opposed it, but lack of some information available nor the use of specialist knowledge is NOT a GA requirement. Of course, you're welcome to take the article to GAR. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Philcha, I'd appreciate if you would tell me if you find defects in an article I write, so I can do something about it. Talk:Andreacarus voalavo is available. Per your suggestion, I've changed the section header to "Taxonomy and ecology". "Idiosoma", contrary to your assertion, is in fact explained, as are all other acarological terms (the source, I can assure you, was a lot harder to understand than the current Wikipedia article is, even if there quite possibly is room for improvement there). This is an article about one species, and while unfamiliar terms are explained, it would be off topic to provide a general introduction to mites—that's what the mite article is for.
I think we may disagree in a basic way on the definition of a GA. In my view, an article should be a GA or FA if we're done or almost done with it—there is nothing left to add. For very poorly known species like A. voalavo, that may mean a very short article is at GA level (the current article covers everything we know about the species, as far as I am aware, except some especially cumbersome details of anatomy); but even quite a long article about a well-studied species like the common chimpanzee may not be at GA level (for example, the article about the chimp doesn't currently say anything about the history of its discovery). You appear to think that we must have a minimum amount of knowledge about a subject before it can make GA. Under your view, some articles would never be able to become any kind of audited content, and I think that's a bad thing; it's better if every article can get a little sign to indicate that it's achieved some minimum quality level. Ucucha 15:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Ucucha. I admit that you defined "idiosoma". However, I think there other issues. I'm not sure it would be fair to go on filling Ealdgyth's Talk page. If you want to continue, I suggest you start a new section on my Talk page. PS I was not trying to go round your back, I wanted Ealdgyth's reaction first. --Philcha (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
If you have comments on the article, two ways are open: the article's talk page and WP:GAR. Ucucha 12:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, Ealdgyth's decision to promote the article seems fine to me, and I'd have done the same; articles can only include the information that's available. But if the article was at FAC, as Ealdgyth says, then I'd be inclined to be a little more demanding. GAN isn't FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Shackleford (horse)

I know you know a lot about horse. I just created Shackleford (horse) and could use some expert assistance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Richard Barre

I promised you a review, but I see you already took it to FAC where you have a stack of supports already. I started to look at it (any reason not to link Bologna to University of Bologna in the lead?) but you don't need another reviewer at this point. Do you have another article you'd like me to look at? Preferably with a bit of leeway till you plan to nominate, since I'm so slow (sorry!): I've been doing a marathon review of Anna of East Anglia for an editor preparing for his first FAC; it's nice to have another editor working in that area; plus I really need to get another article ready for FAC myself. Anyway, I'm happy to review Richard Barre if you want; just let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Nah, unless you just see something horrid, Barre doesn't appear to need a review. (And we're not sure he attended the "U" either, it could have just been one of the peripheral schools... ). If you're desparate for reviewing - I've got Geoffrey (archbishop of York) and Fairfax Harrison at Peer Review - they will be going up after Liber Eliensis and probably after Gerard (archbishop of York) and Theobald of Bec. But don't feel you have to review anything... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


Well, I feel I owe you at least a couple of reviews -- I haven't had as much time as I'd have liked recently, and have not been reviewing at FAC much. Your articles are always so well-prepared that they fly through FAC -- I tend to review from the "Older nominations" half, when I do have time to review, and yours never make it that far down. I will leave it for now, but let me know if you do need something looked at. When I've built up a queue for FAC again and have caught up on other obligations I will ping you again and let you know I have more time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Anna

Would you mind taking a quick look at this and telling me if you agree that a statement like that should be sourced? Or is it so obvious that it doesn't need one? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, anything that references "historians" needs a ref in that situation. Of course, we all know I'm like a citation-freak anyway. Would you like me to read through the article also? You know I'll be reviewing it at FAC anyway... might as well get the pain out of the way early, or something like that... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


Sure, though I won't be nominating it myself -- when I ran into AMitchell125 I asked him if he wanted a collaborator or a reviewer, and he asked me to review. I think it's very close to FA status now on content (barring a couple of niggles on the talk page (you don't happen to have the 2nd edition of Kirby's Earliest English Kings, do you?)), but I think a pass for prose would help, and shouldn't take long. But AMitchell125 is planning to nominate it so yes, might as well look at it now. I've been through all my sources on it; just ordered Clemoes 1959 festschrift Anglo-Saxon Englad for $5 from Alibris since it has an essay of Stenton's on 7th C East Anglian kings, but other than that I've exhausted what I've got. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, my Kirby's the second edition. I'll try to look in on this in the morning. I'm singularly lacking in motivation tonight, and I hear Game of Thrones calling in an hour. After that, I think I'll be curling up with my latest book Egypt, Greece and Rome: Civilizations of the Ancient Mediterranean. (I do read non-medieval stuff occasionally!) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

EMC

Hi, thanks for making a comment on the other page. I don't know whether you can see why I am so prickly in dealing with Deacon, but if you were to read the whole previous discussion (which I am not suggesting you should) you would see that I was the recipient of some pretty personal attacks, and actually, his behaviour was not that of an admin, which is why I will not accept any ex cathedra ruling from him. But if others who will discuss courteously say he is right, I will accept that.

Here's my problem. Over the past years I have been involved professionally in editing a reference work on medieval literature, the EMC. I am also an eager Wikipedian, and my record there speaks for itself. So I am very frustrated to find that Wikipedia's articles on the material I know best have problems, which I am not being allowed to address. For example, our article on the Roda Codex has confused information: it says that this codex contains the Chronicon Albeldense, but in fact it contains a related work, the Crónica profética. I corrected this, and as a source cited the EMC, as I know that the author of the EMC article is the best scholar in the field, and this is the only thing he has written on it in English. Deacon has reverted that, and the misinformation is back.

We have had long discussions about this, mostly revolving around the conflict of interests issue, whether I can cite this source. But the majority view seemed to be on balance that I could.

Another question which arose concerned those cases where I checked an article and it was OK, but unsourced or inadequately sourced. An example would be Jerome, which is generally well sourced, but the section on historical writing has no sources. In these cases I sometimes added the EMC as a confirming source; the EMC article on Jerome is again by a leading scholar and is probably the best summary available anywhere of his historical texts. These cases where I didn't add new material are less important, but the argument which was made against this seems very strange: that we can only cite sources if new material is taken from them. The trouble with that is, if some user has put in correct but unsourced information, we have no way of knowing what source he used. If we are not allowed to add a source which he didn't use, the information must be left forever without a source. None of us really want that. But as I say, those cases are less important, and it is not so much them that I am keen to reintroduce.

So basically, I need advice on how I can work here. I have already undertaken to be much more restrained in order to avoid any impression of spamming. But beyond that, how do I find the limits of what I am allowed to do?

And I also need advice on how to deal with the deacon. If you compare his aggressiveness towards me with the courteous and careful comments of the two people who had milder reservations about the CoI issue, it is very clear that he is pursuing some agenda. My real-life identity is known, his is secret, but we probably move in the same circles (he has written a Wikipedia article about a scholar who worked with me on the EMC), so that he really is not neutral. I'm not a rebel against authority, but I am not going to be blocked from Wiki work by one admin who is abusing his power. --Doric Loon (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, I get along fine with Deacon, we've collaborated quite well when our editing interests overlap, so while I occasionally find him a bit "short", he's also quite competent and very dedicated to making Wikipedia content better. I think it's better for you if you quit concerning yourself with some theory that Deacon is pursuing some agenda, and instead look at what you were doing when he encountered you.
I've only run into you with the John of Tynemouth edit that I pointed out on Deacon's page. That was part of a series of edits where you were going through a semi-alphabetical list and adding a citation to the EMC without adding anything to the article. If you'd cited some unsourced information, that might have been better, but in that series of edits, my spot check showed that you were doing much the same as you did on John of Tynemouth (chronicler) - adding in a citation to the EMC without actually citing something unsourced or adding new information. That, combined with the fact you'd created a specialized template to add in EMC citations, certainly set you up to look like all you were interested in was adding in as many links to the EMC as possible, whether or not it actually advanced the article content.
The balance of the COI discussion, I read, as saying you could ADD new information to articles, and cite it to the EMC, or that you could use the EMC to CITE UNSOURCED information to existing articles, but not that you could just add it as another citation when it wasn't actually used in writing the articles. That's where you run into COI issues - you can't just WP:BOOKSPAM citations without additional information.
An additional concern is that you're not adapting yourself to the norms of Wikipedia. Witness the total lack of learning how to thread replies on talk pages - the use of colons to indent replies is a big help in reading talk pages, and if you want to be accepted as really wanting to improve Wikipedia, you would learn how to do so. INstead, the fact that you don't make that effort, contributes to the appearance of just wanting to add links to the work you're connected with. Frankly, your pattern of edits does indeed look to me like you're more concerned with getting exposure to the EMC than actually improving articles. The general practice in Wikipedia is to use secondary sources - i.e. journal monographs, other books, etc, rather than tertiary sources such as the EMC. If there isn't any good scholarly secondary source on a subject, then the EMC (or the ODNB, or other such scholarly tertiary works) can be used, but if there are secondary sources, they should be used first. This is where you gain the appearance of COI again, because you're not using a wide range of sources, you're focused narrowly on the EMC, it does make it appear that you're trying to promote the EMC. Wikipedia frowns on being used as a promotional tool. Another issue is that it's a new work - not a huge number of places have it yet, and it's quite frankly expensive enough that it's going to be hard for the individual scholar (such as me) to justify buying it. My nearby university library has just bought the work this year, and a lot of other nearby ones don't plan to purchase it for a while. So the fact that it's recent does indeed add another bit towards the appearance of a promotional tie - a lot of book publishers/authors/publicists try to push citations to works that are new onto Wikipedia.
My suggestion is to actually try to figure out the whole Wikipedia culture - take to heart what I wrote above. Step into other people's shoes - see how it appears to those of us who are actively building content and who work hard to show all sides of the subject. LEarn about talk page etiquette, learn more about out sourcing policies, learn the difference between citing a tertiary encyclopedia and a secondary monograph and why we at Wikipedia strive to use the secondary stuff as much as possible. And, no, I'm not just talking out my butt here - I've gotten Hemming's Cartulary to FA status and am currently working up Liber Eliensis up to make a run for FAC, so I've been in the trenches for almost four years now, and it takes time to learn how to edit productively here - take that time and my advice as it is meant - as constructive help meant to make sure you don't continue to run into difficulties. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I do take that as construtive help and am grateful. I already know your Wikipedia work well, which is why I asked for advice. I think I do have more of an idea of Wikipedia culture than you are realising right now - the way you have seen me portrayed here is not quite fair. I have acknowledged that my original set of edits were open to misinterpretation and I will be more careful about perceptions, and am certainly bearing everything you said in mind. However, I don't think I blindly added an EMC reference anywhere. It was always being used to source something specific; but I know I have to make that more transparent.
Right now what is most relevant is your third paragraph. If you think it is OK for me to cite EMC either when I have used it for new material or when I have used it to confirm existing unsourced material, then you will not have any problem with me returning to the four or five articles in question and continuing with what I was doing before I was stopped. At the point when Deacon started reverting, I was working at Jerome, and was in the process of beefing up that whole section. So there WILL be new material.
I said there are four that I particularly want to return to. Martin of Opava is another. Here I contributed a lot of material to the article between 2005 and 2009, but wasn't able to cite my main source as it hadn't been published. It isn't my own writing I am citing, but because of my involvement in the encyclopedia it was lying on my desk many years before the rest of the world got to see it. Now it has appeared, and it is right for me to put it in. It sounds to me like you have no problem with this, or the other things I am trying to do, once they have been explained.
But it is very difficult for me to try to work there when anything I do is likely to be reverted, and the threat of blocking my account is just sheer bullying. The thing about Wikipedia admins is that they actually wield quite a lot of power - where else in life can the same person act as policeman, judge, jury and executioner? The ability to delete articles and block accounts is open to misuse, and it is difficult to have any comeback because complaints against admins are not easy to initiate. Add that to the fact that they are not subject to regular re-election or other systematic scrutiny, and you have a potentially difficult situation. The fact that it is not a regular source of crises is down to the very high quality of most of our admins. But they have to be absolutely scrupulous about behaving fairly and properly. And Deacon just is not. Any other admin I have dealt with would have handled this quite differently: they would have asked me to explain what I was doing and would actually have listened to the answer; they would have recognized that I was acting in good faith and would have told me in a non-provocative tone what I needed to do differently, and I would have followed their instructions, and we would have quickly had an understanding which solved the problem while allowing me to continue editing, and there would have been none of this ill feeling. Not so Deacon. Not only was the level of open hostility in his tone appauling from the word go, but he broke a whole series of other obvious Wikipedia conventions. I'm not going to list them again. But the discovery that we presumably know each other in real life (medievalists in Scottish universities are a small circle and at least two colleagues have been named whom we obviously both know) leaves a very bad feeling, given that he knows who I am and not vice versa. Under these circumstances I am entitled to say that he should not be acting as an admin here. If he is right, there will be another admin who will talk to me about it on a better basis.--Doric Loon (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Learn to indent. Until you do, you're going to look like you don't care about other things. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought that was clear enough. Fixed. Do you understand where I'm coming from here at all?--Doric Loon (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Honestly? I self-identify, but I don't worry about folks who don't. I don't worry about whether or not the folks I run into while editing are possibly opponents in RL (and I probably have them from both my university studies as well as the horse research I've done in my later life also). Stop worrying about HOW someone tells you something and pay attention to what they've said. I've never had issues with Deacon, and if you stick with what he's telling you about avoiding the appearance of COI, then you should be fine. HOwever, if you continue some of the edits where you were just adding in the EMC without adding either content or sourcing to an article (And just adding the EMC as an additional link isn't actually "sourcing something unsourced" such as this edit.) This is slightly better, but instead of just adding the one single addition, it would have been better to go on and source the rest of the article, and clearly mark any information that wasn't possible to source also. This edit however, added nothing new, again, it would have been more useful to source all that additional unsourced information in the article. And same for this edit - this is the pattern of edits that raised eyebrows and frankly, if that's what you return to doing, you would deserve a block for promotional spam. Let your actions speak for you .. go out and DO those good edits you claim you want to do, but make sure they ARE good edits, not like the ones above with the issuses. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, well those ones you are pointing to are not ones I am planning to revisit anyway, so no need to discuss them. I hope you are right: I will go ahead and edit as I said above, which is in keeping with what you are saying, and let's just hope that the other party really is going to let me do that. Sorry if I have burdened you, but I really have found it very difficult to fight my way through this. --Doric Loon (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Jænberht

I have reviewed the article here and placed it on hold for the moment, but there are only a few questions and comments that I had, and nothing major to do. I copy-edited the article as I reviewed it, but if I've changed any meanings or used a wrong word, or if you just don't like it, please revert it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Passed now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thanks again for the review. I don't think he'll go to FAC, but you never know... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Saxon

I saw the discussion on Malleus' talk page, so I went and nominated the article at DYK. Hope you don't mind. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs
Walter Durdent
Robert Gilbert (bishop)
Gilbert Segrave
Henry de Sandwich
Quin Abbey
Fulk Basset
John Merbecke
Ralph Stratford
Robert FitzHugh
William Barons
ElgooG
Yeghishe Arakyal Monastery
Richard de Wentworth
Pamela Bach
Loreto College, Coleraine
Godfrey of Bath
Gabourey Sidibe
Herfast
Richard Newport (bishop)
Cleanup
Richard Chartres
Richard Downey
John Calvin
Merge
Church of the Holy Sepulchre
IBM
Glasgow Chronology
Add Sources
Richard le Scrope
Roger Northburgh
Charlemagne
Wikify
Mongol Empire
Waynflete School
Pottery of ancient Greece
Expand
Cuthbert Tunstall
House of Medici
Gerald Stokell

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Happy Anniversary to me!

Today marks four years on Wikipedia for me... in that time, I've worked on 1 featured topic, 2 featured lists, 41 featured articles, 75 good articles, over 80 did you knows, and started 735 articles. I've made almost 62,000 edits in that time. Wow. Still only about a third done with the whole bishop project... yikes! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Happy anniversary! I think we should start a scale, a la wedding anniversaries - this could be your non-breaking space anniversary. Only a year to go before the endash one. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Your productivity is screwing up the service awards, are you a {{Looshpah II Userbox}} or a mere {{Labutnum Userbox}} ?? Montanabw(talk) 20:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on four incredibly productive years. You're an inspiration to other editors -- I really mean it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That's an amazing record Ealdgyth. Now, if you can keep it up for another eight years you might just finish the medieval bishops. Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well done. A mitre-ey, er mighty effort.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Back to business. While you've been celebrating I've been trying to address some of the issues brought up at FAC, and I thought I'd add a link: can you believe that this was ever an FA? Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
This is what got FA! Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
And after seven years, it still contained the same grammatical mistake. Ucucha 12:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

RS question

If you have a moment, could you let me know whether you feel sfsignal.com is a reliable source? I don't know much about them; as far as I can tell from their about page they exert editorial control, but I can't tell whether it's an enthusiastic group of fans or a commercial enterprise with some editorial rigor. The link I'd like to use is this, in order to source the announcement of a new version of New Worlds. No great harm if it can't be used -- the magazine itself will be a source if it does appear. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

And if I can bug you for another opinion, there is an odd situation with regard to New Worlds (magazine). This site is run by a fan, and is pretty clearly not a reliable source. However, if you look here, you'll see on the right a picture of a copy of issue 32 priced at 35 cents. This is not mentioned in any of the bibliographic sources. Because it's a picture, I'd like to treat it as evidence. What I would do is comment in the article that there is some evidence that an Canadian or US edition existed in the mid-1950s, and add a footnote that linked to this page with an explanatory comment saying that the site was not itself a reliable source but the image of issue 32 indicated some distribution must have taken place at that time. Would that pass muster? Without that the article is forced to be silent about something that looks as if it really happened. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd lean no on both counts. It's entirely too easy to photoshop things and I wouldn't trust an image for this sort of thing without some backup. As for sfsignal - can you replace with something from Locus? If need be, I can get to U of I and look up stuff in their back issues there... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be in the online Locus, so I think I'll cut it from the article with a note on the talk page. It can be re-added if Locus announces it -- and I'm a subscriber so I should be able to cite it from the printed edition. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

GAR for Royal Stoa (Jerusalem)

Thank you for taking the time to do the review. There will likely be bits of newly published material to add and improvements still to be made. Your valuable suggestions are appreciated! • Astynax talk 17:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Cowboy hat photo

I want to thank you for your photo of a cowboy hat at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Felthat.jpg. I think it's one of the best on the web. I have used it on the cover of a book I am editing, and intend to credit it as follows: "The photo of the white hat on the cover is courtesy of Victoria Short, used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license." If you would like me to change this in any way, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBlackstone (talkcontribs) 01:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Stephen and bishops...

Just a quick note to say that I've expanded Stephen, King of England a bit; given all the medieval English bishops involved in the story - plus your general interest in Anglo-Norman issues - if you've a moment or two to spare, I'm sure it would benefit further from your comments... Hchc2009 (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Deusdedit of Canterbury

My usual misunderstandings:

Lead
  • Given the controversy over Deusdedit's date of death is it appropriate that the lead should so firmly state it as 14 July 664?
Legacy
  • "... a late 10th or early 11th-century psalter produced at St Augustine's". Is this the St Augustine's Abbey that's linked later?
  • "His feast day is designated as a major feast day, and is included along with a number of other early Canterbury archbishops." Included in what?
Death
  • There are quite a few "felt" and "feels" in this section, something I recall came up in Liber's FAC.
  • "... as Stenton was persuaded that Bede's years ran from 1 September to 31 August." This seems to repeat what we were told a couple of sentences up the page.
  • "... for which Stenton felt that the length calculations given by Bede were more correct than the actual death date given." What length calculations given by Bede? Were there any calculations at all in Bede?
  • "Abels adds to Grosjean's arguments Bede's association of Deusdedit's death with that of King Eorcenberht, stating that they died on the same day." I'm not sure who it is stating that they died on the same day, Abels or Bede.

Malleus Fatuorum 14:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny

It's funny how one thing leads to another here, and how poor those other things so often tend to be. Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Do I want to know WHY you were editing an article on gibbets? And I'm trying to clean up the various medievalist terms - today I cleaned up Synod of Chelsea (well, sorta). Ealdgyth - Talk 01:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Come on, the Halifax Gibbet is surely irresistible, especially once you know that the blade wasn't particularly sharp. I must admit though that I became a little bit queasy after reading some of the accounts of heads that appeared to be able to answer to their former owners' names for a few seconds after being chopped off. Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Did you know ... that during the 13th century the Archbishop of York had his own private gallows? Malleus Fatuorum 19:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Works for me.. not every ecclesiastic that could hang criminals on his own aparatus! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a really stupid question, but do we know why is was called "gibbet"? I always understood a gibbet to be the gallows-type thing from which traitors' bodies were dangled after execution, rather than the actual instrument of execution, and the OED more or less agrees (Originally synonymous with gallows, but in later use signifying an upright post with projecting arm from which the bodies of criminals were hung in chains or irons after execution). – iridescent 19:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, only just noticed this. No clues at all as to why it became known as a gibbet, although I'd speculate that the name "Halifax Gibbet" was at least in part ironical: like "Glasgow handshake", or "Birmingham screwdriver". Malleus Fatuorum 16:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

A quick source question:

I've come across a website that provides scanned tax documents for non-profit organizations. However, I'm wondering if it would be considered a HQRS. The website is here, and the documents look like this. Is the website itself reliable enough to use as a complimentary link (since the actual hard copy documents are on file someplace)? Or should I just reference the tax documents as hard copy and leave out the link? Thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Are the documents not available through the government? I have concerns about the primary nature of these things - if no reliable secondary sources have covered this information - how noteworthy is it? Also, this company seems to be a for-profit, can they host these documents? I'm not sure about the copyright status of forms filled out FOR the government - ones by Federal governmental employees are copyright free (usually) but what about our tax returns? Ealdgyth - Talk 11:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
My impression was that the tax documents of non-profit organizations (like the American Livestock Breed Conservancy, who filled out these documents) are publicly available, because of the non-profit status. AFAIK, individual people's tax documents are not public record (thank goodness, and if I'm wrong on this I shall have issues with it!). I don't know if these would be available through the government, but I believe the organization has to provide them if asked. The company that owns the website is a for-profit, but my impression was that they were providing records on non-profits as a public service. I'll do a bit more digging into this later today. I was also a bit concerned about the primary nature of this, but I can't find secondary sources with any of this information, and I've had a couple people ask about funding amounts, volunteers, employees, etc., and I was hoping that I would be able to do some sort of a "In 1998, the ALBC reported x employees, y volunteers, and z dollars in funding. By 2009, these numbers had increased to a, b and c.". Thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm a hardliner on primary sourcing, myself, so take what I with that in mind. My opinion is that if some secondary source hasn't covered this information, it's pretty marginal to include. I could see reporting basic information, but interpreting that information in any way would be going into OR territory. I always figure that if someone else hasn't reported the information, it must not be noteworthy enough for inclusion. Point out to Malleus that this really isn't much different than not including newspaper accounts of Bonfire Night in the Guy Fawkes Day article (In fact, there's a better case for including that then digging through primary sources to find funding information ...) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, to answer the public domain question, this states that "Since the organization is committed to serving the public, salaries, as well as state and federal filings and operating expenses, are considered public domain." (bolding mine) So, do you think that a statement like the above (In 1998, etc) would be going over the line into OR, using primary documents? I have searched high, low and center for this information in secondary sources and haven't been able to find it, but, as I said above, have had a couple of people ask for more on it in the article. So, I'm worried that I might get comprehensiveness opposes at FAC because of the information not being included. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I know you're not asking me, but I'll offer my opinion anyway, which is that it's perfectly OK to use primary sources for straightforward facts like operating expenses, turnover and so on, so long as there's no interpretation, just reporting. In any article about a charitable organisation I'd expect to see how they make and spend their money, how much of what they take goes on operating expenses, basic stuff like that. One could in fact argue (and I probably would) that the primary documents in cases like this are actually the books/accounts maintained by the organisation, not the annual returns based on those accounts. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Non-profits have a different tax status than individuals and all their stuff IS available, ERI looks pretty good to me, but if another good resource to find any non-profit's tax return go to the Guidestar website. I think with a free membership there you can find any non-profit and their 990. Ealdgyth and Malleus can rule on the RS issues, but this is a legit place to go, similar to places that analyze government reports to track campaign spending, for example. Montanabw(talk) 19:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Handy Handley's

Hey, so from talk page stalking Malleus I noticed your speciality seems to be biographies "of a certain age" :) I wondered if I could tap you for advice. I'm trying to write biography articles for notable families in my area (I got a sudden penchant for local history :)). Anyway; I'm a bit stumped for good sources (apart from one stellar book all about them) and wondered if you had any tips where else I could look for ye-olde biographical material (I tried ODNB, no joy). Cheers in advance! --Errant (chat!) 19:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Complete Peerage? Try the local Lincolnshire antiquarian journals? This one? This society? (As a side note, that family is like 500 years too young for me...) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Well they might be closer to my interests in years :) but a lot closer to yours in the sphere of experience! Last few days I've been floundering in the dark a bit :) Thanks for the pointers, should set me in the right direction. Cheers --Errant (chat!) 20:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
You might find Burke's A genealogical and heraldic history of the landed gentry useful. Here's a link to the 1852 edition.[1] Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Watch Burke's on reliablity. They are usually pretty good for stuff reasonably current - but anything earlier than 1600 or so take with a big grain of salt. Anything from early editions of the work that is before 1400 take with a small mountain sized boulder of salt. They aren't exactly ... noted for accuracy on early pedigrees. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thankee both. I have a pre-1400 family to work on next so that warning is noted. I have a pedigree on this family from 1614 which is politely described as "vague" :P--Errant (chat!) 22:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Source question

Do you have time for another quick source opinion? Some subpages of this are being used for James E. Boyd, which I'm reviewing at FAC. It seems to be a production of the university, and is hosted by them, so it may well contain "edited prose" and may not be considered self-published. My problem is I can't see enough information about the provenance to judge how it was written, or even who wrote it. Do you feel it qualifies as a RS? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It's probably RS per Wikipedia, but it's probably not a high quality RS ... for that we'd need more information on who/what produced it. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
OK -- I'll let it pass at FAC and ask the editor to use it only when other sources don't contain the same info. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Saxon (horse)

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs
Michael Northburgh
Richard Vaughan (bishop)
Richard Terrick
William Gray (bishop)
Lourdes Domínguez Lino
Mad Play
George Jenkins
William of Northall
Richard Clifford
William of Louth
Humphrey Henchman
The Horribly Slow Murderer with the Extremely Inefficient Weapon
Gilbert Glanvill
Ernulf
Richard Fletcher (bishop)
John Dalderby
Nicholas Bubwith
John of Coutances
Richard Osbaldeston
Cleanup
BP
Thomas Rotherham
Rouen Cathedral
Merge
Henry VIII and His Six Wives
Livery of seisin
Montana
Add Sources
Richard Courtenay
Roger of Salisbury
John Russell (bishop)
Wikify
Theftbote
Johnny Possums Good Time Hootin Band
IBM Master Inventor
Expand
Longchamp-sur-Aujon
Agriculture
Magna Carta

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I persuade you to take a look at this?

Can I persuade you to take a look at this and let me know what you think? It's not quite the finished article yet I know, but it's been on my back-burner for far too long now and I'd like to get it through GAN if possible before I leave it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I just got back down into civilization from Yellowstone National Park (wolf! we saw and photographed a wolf! And grizzlies!) so it'll be tomorrow, sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

TFL notification

Symbol list class.svg Hi, Ealdgyth. I'm just posting to let you know that List of members of the Gregorian mission – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been submitted as a candidate to be featured on the Main Page as Today's featured list. The proposed content can be seen here. You are more than welcome to post your thoughts on the nomination. Regards, —WFC— 23:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry that the notification is a little late. We're still learning the ropes over at TFL. —WFC— 23:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
LOL... do you really wanna know? As a vet of 11 or so TFAs... I'm just so thrilled at the thought of something else getting on the main page (gaze up) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs
Ship burial
William Wells (bishop)
John Low
John Randolph (bishop of London)
Henry Campbell
Lex Saxonum
John Langdon (bishop)
Robert Stopford
George Montaigne
Rati (Norse mythology)
Thomas Savage
John Stafford (bishop)
Waleran (Bishop of Rochester)
Thomas Brinton
John Moore (archbishop of Canterbury)
John Bottlesham
God (male deity)
John Wakering
Medicine in medieval Islam
Cleanup
Rochester Common railway station
Rollo
International Conference on High Energy Physics
Merge
Nimbus (horse)
Float (horse-drawn)
Cross-country equestrianism
Add Sources
John Sheppey
Bosel
Welsh Pony and Cob
Wikify
Gospel of Matthew
Ivy May Bolton
Rochester Contemporary Art Center
Expand
Shire of Rochester
Battle of Lincoln (1141)
Jane Eyre (1934 film)

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on June 30, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 30, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Another one? At the rate you've been chewing through Bishops, how many can there really be left? :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, I have 1500+ articles on my watchlist - so figure about 1000 or so medieval English bishops dating before 1500 AD. Maybe as many as 1200. (There has to be room for obscure manuscripts, weird horses, and strange artifacts somewhere...) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources reliability question

May I tap your ancient wisdom? Last March at FAC I did a source review for Mount Cleveland (Alaska). The archived FAC page is here. You will see that I queried the reliability of an unpublished paper. The nominator made various arguments which I didn't find convincing, before the nom was archived. The nominator has told me he wishes to renominate and has asked my views on the outstanding sources issue. I am still dubious, but perhaps I am being inflexible? Anyhow, could you find time to take a look and let me have your view on this? Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced, honestly. I'd rather see something that was at least vetted somehow, although the information isn't exactly earth-shattering either. As an aside, I've replied to your points on Deusdedit. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll advise the nominator accordingly. I'll be back on the FAC page later today. Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Picture

Dropped the rewrite into mainspace before seeing your comment - hope you didn't have any major comments you were going to post. If you have any further source info on them it would be helpful - I've mined out all of mine, although it's not something that's at the top of my list (just the area where I can work under the radar at the moment). Also, completely didn't realize that was your picture; one with a summer coat would be awesome. Any way you could get one with her facing the other way (i.e., into the article for a lead pic)? Pretty please? Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do. We were taking those photos for a trainer, so they were put up on Commons as a sidenote. We have an art festival this weekend, so it'll be next week before I have time. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't have much else past what you have. I have to point out that the mare isn't actually registered with the Quarab registry (nor are my other half and three-quarters arabs... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Theobald of Bec

My usual stupid questions section:

Lead
  • "He was a Norman by birth, but his exact birth date is unknown". Haven't we already said that his exact birth date is unkown by sticking a "c." in front of it? And do we really need to link that?
  • We need to explicitly state that, because the guesstimate of the birthdate is a bit nebulous. And I always link "circa" ... many American's I know won't know what it means. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Family and background
  • "The exact date of Theobald's birth is unknown; the only clue to his age is that when he died in 1161 contemporaries considered him to be an old man, implying that he was probably born in about 1090." I'm struggling a bit with this. How can "old man" be so accurately characterised? Wouldn't 61 also have been considered an old man in the 12th century, meaning that Theobald might equally have been born in 1100?
  • I've tried to reword this - both sources seem convinced that this is a date that makes sense but I agree with you... but unfortunately it's OR to say "These historians are smoking something ..." Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "Theobald is remembered as the patron of his successor Thomas Becket." Remembered by whom? I'd bet a pound to a penny that less than half-a-dozen people ever reading this article will have remembered Theobald at all.
Disputes with Stephen
  • "Theobald had many reasons for defying the king ..." But yet we give only two?
Difficulties with Henry of Blois

Does this section really have the correct title? It actually seems to be largely about Theobald's difficulties with Henry of Winchester.

Henry of Blois=Henry of Winchester Ealdgyth - Talk 20:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, OK, but the section starts off with "Theobald suffered difficulties because of the position of Henry of Winchester ...", but his name wasn't Henry of Winchester was it? At any event, it's more than a little confusing to start the section off by calling him Henry of Winchester and later switch to Henry of Blois. Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Disputes with Stephen
  • "Theobald was back in Paris in May 1147 to meet with the new pope, Eugene III, probably about difficulties with Bernard of St David's." "To meet ... probably about ..." doesn't really make sense. To discuss his difficulties with Bernard with the pope? To petition the pope about his difficulties with Bernard?
  • Reworded, see how that works? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Patronage and household
  • In the final paragraph we're told that "Vacarius was an Italian who at first taught in Theobald's household, and later moved to Oxford to teach Roman law", which we've already been told in the opening paragraph.
  • What on Earth is a "sidpenser"?
  • An amazingly amusing typo. Fixed. And while I was there, I linked a few things. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Relations with other bishops
  • "His first effort was the consecration of Meurig as Bishop of Bangor in 1140". Effort seems to be the wrong word there. Success? Achievement? Same with "This, however, was the last effort, as in 1152 the papal legate Giovanni Paparo reorganised the Irish dioceses and settled the primacy of Ireland by making the Archbishop of Armagh the primate of Ireland."

Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

First section
  • "Canterbury's claim to primacy over the Welsh ecclesiastics was ended in Theobald's reign when Pope Eugene III decided in 1148 in Canterbury's favour." This confused me when I first read it- usually when a claim is ended, it's been dismissed or is unsuccessful. For instance "Henry Tudor's claim to the throne of England was ended by Richard III's death at the Battle of Bosworth" doesn't seem right. (A sidpenser is one who ponders by the Sid). Ning-ning (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Technically it wasn't dismissed because the pope never really ruled ON Canterbury's claim - they just elevated an Irish diocese ... which basically ended the claims. Suggestions are welcome to resolve the concern... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • How did the elevation of an Irish diocese affect the Welsh? Could we say something like "Canterbury's claim ... was successfully concluded when ..."? Malleus Fatuorum 14:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Gah, sorry. My brain misread this morning, I claim the pounding headache. Your suggestion is fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think the old boy's ready to be put to the sword at FAC now. Bon chance. Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Me whine? The very idea! Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

And the witch-bishop is ready...

To be cleaned up of all my yankee commas and other errors. Gerard (archbishop of York) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, looking forward to this one! Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought I recognised it. I can't believe that GAN was three years ago. Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, takes a while for things to move through my process... slow but sure wins the race and all that... I think after Gerard, we'll tackle another layman William de Chesney, and then hopefully Fairfax Harrison (a non Englishman non clergy!) and another bad boy bishop Geoffrey (archbishop of York) (and a bastard to boot!) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
We're becoming quite the factory. I have no idea how you manage it Ealdgyth; I agonise over stuff in my head for ages, and often end up writing nothing as a result. I've got four books on workhouses piled up on my desk, but I haven't written a word on it for weeks. Do you have a pill or something you could send me? Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget I do take trips which gives me a break away from things. Right now, I'm not feeling particularly like writing "new" stuff, so I'm mainly polishing stuff I've already got written. Hopefully after this art festival this weekend, I can get back to work on actual research, which has been lagging since late May, honestly. I did do a bit on Remigius de Fécamp, but that's been about it as far as "big" expansions. Tonight I'm sorta spacey from sinus pills, so not really wanting to do a lot of serious work. And I'd find workhouses to be incredibly boring and depressing, so I can totally understand why you're ignoring it. I'm doing the same with the psycho one or Teddy the Greek. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually I find workhouses to be quite fascinating on a number of different levels, not least of which is "there but for the grace of God ...". The attitudes they embodied towards the poor, and how those attitudes changed throughout the 19th century are quite revealing, although it's quite shocking to me that they persisted in England until well into the 20th century. One my main blocks right now is how, if at all, to treat workhouses or their equivalents in parts of the world other than England. I know that the US had somewhat similar poor houses or poor farms, and I have a horror of the workhouse article turning into the typical wikipedia article with sections on workhouses in the USA, workhouses in The Netherlands ... kind of nonsense you can see in articles like witchcraft. Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Tasty cake

Piąte urodziny polskojęzycznej Wikipedii tort 001.jpg Congratulatory Cake
Congratulations on the promotion of Deusdedit of Canterbury to featured status! Although not much can be known about this saint with certainty, you've helped create and excellent article nonetheless. Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia! – Quadell (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Review?

Hi Ealdgyth! 2005 Qeshm earthquake's looking rather lonely; if you have the time, could you provide some commentary? It would be hugely appreciated. ceranthor 18:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It'll have to be Monday - RL is buggered up this afternoon and the weekend is an art festival where we're selling prints ... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs
John Blyth
Ælfsige
Thomas Trilleck
Richard Young (Bishop of Rochester)
Icelandic equitation
James Goldwell
John of Oxford
The English Historical Review
Pauline Stafford
John Chandler (bishop)
Journal of British Studies
Everard of Calne
Robert Wyvil
Coldblood trotter
Lionel Woodville
Roger Martival
Vexin
Simon Keynes
William Ayscough
Cleanup
Earconwald
List of Anglo-Saxon saints
Exercise induced pulmonary hemorrhage
Merge
Brien FitzCount
Horse hoof
Lusitano
Add Sources
Archibald Tait
Polo
Zebroid
Wikify
DAD-IS
Charlene Semkin
Diet of Regensburg (1541)
Expand
Large Black (pig)
Equestrianism
Ottokar III of Styria

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

FAC for Theobald of Bec

Hi Ealdgyth, the article is of very nice quality, well structured and informative, so there probably won't be many issues left. Thank you for another enjoyable read. As a non-expert i tend to reread such articles atleast 2 or 3 times completely, before trying to make a (somewhat) qualified statement. I will check it once more, now that the prose tweaks are done, as soon as possible. GermanJoe (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Bwaaaa !!

I was just doing my daily articlehistory error cleanup and entered a smartaleck comment, and then looked and discovered it was your GA !! Foot in mouth :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh. I didn't do a thing with the articlehistory there.. so no foot in Sandy's mouth there... I let the bot deal with that stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:Query...

Sent it across. Hope it's useful! J Milburn (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ealdgyth. You have new messages at Mike Christie's talk page.
Message added 15:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drmies (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Haha, sorry for the template (saw your note above). I'm adding a personal message to, well, personalize it: "Ealdgyth, did you get your hair done? It looks great!" Drmies (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Next Children's Museum Backstage Pass

Hi Victoria! I wanted to personally invite you to our upcoming Backstage Pass and Edit-a-Thon at The Children's Museum, which will occur on Saturday, August 20th. Since you've already had your own personal tour of collections, you may not be quite as keen to attend, but you nonetheless would always be considered an honored guest whenever you'd like to come out!

I'm quite embarrassed by how long it's taken to show our appreciation of your hard work for the Carousel FA, and by how horribly I've kept in touch. My life has been one gigantic balancing act lately, and add to the fact that things are slow moving in museum-land, and you have months going by! But know that you were nominated as Volunteer of the Month in June, which was announced at the staff meeting. A long-time intern received the distinction of Volunteer of the Month, instead, but you did receive a small gift certificate to the gift shop. We considered mailing it to you but then thought it might make more sense to give you an online gift shop compensation, which just never quite came about. But, know that you're on our minds :). In fact, you've been an interesting case study about what it means to be an E-Volunteer, something that I'm speaking about at Wikimania in a couple of weeks. Rather interesting, no?

Pardon if I already passed this on to you, but we do have a QRpedia code up now in the carousel exhibit, which links to your article. See my personal blog post and soon I'll have a museum blog up about it. (Here's my New Media Consortium post on what QRpedia is). Soon we'll be translating the article into Spanish and French as part of a (secret, shhh ;) Trans-GLAM-Wiki project that the Wikipedians-in-Residence around the world are organizing. Hope you're doing well and let me know if you have any updates or questions about the Backstage Pass! LoriLee (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries, Lori, we've been busy here, and I'm sure you're enjoying the heat as much as we are. We probably won't be able to make the backstage event, we have an artist's reception on the 26th at a gallery in Wyoming that month, so it's unlikely we'll manage both events. I've still been poking away at the Reuben Wells stuff, but not finding much, quite honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
This time, you've got to make it up at least as far as Livingston, Montana because it finally is really summer now (supposed to hit close to 100 today). We only get three months of summer, must be enjoyed while you can! If you avoid the Park and come up via the Beartooth Highway, it's a spectacular view if you haven't done that route before — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talkcontribs)
A lot is going to depend on timing, honestly. We've got some art fairs to attend here in town not that long after when we need to be in Wyoming... so... And we're looking at 105 or higher heat indices this week.. sucks to be us. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, once you hit the Rockies, it's at least dry heat! (100 degrees is really 100 degrees, and NO humidity!) Should be down to the 80s by the time you hit Wyo. And it's been cooling into the 50s and low 60s at night even on the hottest days! So it doesn't suck out here! (for the next two or three months, anyway) Good luck on your journeys! Montanabw(talk) 20:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
It's conversations like this one that remind me how absurd it is to think of the USA as being a country rather than a federation of very different states. (I was tempted to say confederation there, but I thought better of it.) Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
It's no more odd than thinking of a Cornishman and a native of Carlisle being "in the same country". We consider ourselves Americans (even the Texans....) and there are enough things keeping us together that it's easy to see. Granted, we have some pretty extreme differences of temperature, but that's true of say .. Chile or Brazil also. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure the Texans think of the rest of us as "real" Americans, though (grin). But what ** I ** can't figure out is how a "country" that is smaller in land area than the state of Montana can call itself a country! I mean, you can drive across the UK in just a few hours! And surrounded by all that water! That's just WEIRD! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 20:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I found it very interesting to be in England... when we told some natives that we were driving from London up to Hadrian's Wall... they acted like we were driving off the ends of the earth. It only took four hours or so.... Hell, I can drive that long and still stay in my current state! And I don't even live in a "big" state... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
That's what the Romans though as well, why they built the wall. La plus ça change, la plus c'est la mème chose. Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm not saying it's "odd", although I do find the notion of Chile to be rather strange as well. But Cornwall and Carlisle are about 275 miles apart, the distance you'd probably travel to go shopping. And the difference in weather between the two is just a few degrees or or so on average, although Carlisle almost certainly gets a bit more snow than Cornwall. Bear in mind as well that in England we have nothing like your state legislatures; both Cornwall and Carlisle are governed from Westminster. Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but the dialects in those two places are more extreme than the dialect differences between Illinois and Montana (although close to the difference between a New Englander (i.e. a "true" Yankee) and a Southerner from South Carolina (Virginian's aren't nearly so "southern").... I think part of what knits the US together is that we've always had a segement of the population that moved around... which tends to make things a lot more of a melting pot. Even the south after Reconstruction had immigrants from outside the area... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
That's also true of the industrialised areas of England. It's been estimated that about 60% percent of the population of Manchester, for instance, is of Irish descent either directly or indirectly. But perhaps I used the word "country" incautiously; obviously the US is a country in any meaningful sense of the word, but there are so many contrasts that asking someone the question "Have you been to America?" is almost meaningless unless you also ask where in America. Mind you, the same is true for different reasons of holiday destinations like Spain I suppose. Spending two weeks on one the Costas isn't exactly seeing Spain. For the sake of full disclosure I've only visited California and Nevada; once on a skiing holiday and once to deliver a training course (not on skiing). Malleus Fatuorum 21:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I consider California a good representative of America, honestly. (Full disclosure, I detest the place, although I've not been to Northern California, which I'm told is mostly okay except for San Francisco). And Nevada's just plain bizarre.. if you were in Reno or Vegas, that's still not really America (Vegas is fun, but a tourist trap beyond belief. It's like being stuck on the London Eye for days on end or something...) I've always felt that you can't say you've visited a country until you've seen at least five different historical sites as well as a tourist trap and a small town. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────**Muffled laugh** SHOPPING?  :-D Actually, for me it IS about 250 miles to the biggest shopping mall in the state! LOL!! But even "California" cannot be defined easily as there are at least 4 or 5 distinct regions. Other than the whole state having too many people, I think it is mostly OK once you get north of the greater Los Angeles region (I hate to fly through LAX).San Francisco is historic, unique and funky in the way that, oh, maybe Greenwich Village in New York is -- people either love it or hate it, but either way, it's badly overpriced! I agree with Ealdgyth that Nevada, especially Vegas, is weird and sort of a caricature of America, though I hear the skiing around Tahoe is lovely -- if I was forced to live in Nevada, Reno is generally tacky but on the edge of tolerable other than the crime rate. For total tourist traps, my favorite to date was the Ettamogah Pub in Queensland, though I think Ealdgyth may top me with the UFO stuff in Roswell, New Mexico, which I would love to see! If you want interesting dialects, drive about 20 miles over the Canadian border from Montana and chat up some Albertan Hutterites. The US ones just have a sort-of German accent, but in Canada it would take Henry Higgins to sort out the sources! As for the rest of the world, you must admit to the arbitrary lines created by European conquerors all over the western and southern hemispheres! Montanabw(talk) 21:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair point; some of those arbitary boundaries we and other European powers imposed on the Middle East and Africa look pretty dodgey today. And it was indeed around Lake Tahoe that we spent two weeks skiing, apart from a trip into San Francisco to visit a friend. I though it was all great, and I'd be very happy to go back. Tahoe is especially appealing because it straddles the border between California and Nevada, so if you're ever looking for a meal or a drink late in the evening then you can just take a short walk to the nearest casino. Perfick! Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
When I flew into Reno, I was sort of squicked out by the slot machines in the airport ... though maybe that was just the turbulence that characterized the flight in and out, worse than Salt Lake City, and that's another p place where pilots don't seem to understand that there are mountains near the airport(!) I enjoyed the one time I spent about a week in San Francisco, though it was many years ago, and even then overpriced. (We stayed in a borrowed RV at a nearby campground that charged then what we'd normally pay for a motel anywhere else!) Probably the city that most reminded me of European ones. Montanabw(talk) 23:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps that's why I quite liked it. The thing that astonished me about the Nevada casinos though was the number of people wandering around and sitting at slot machines for hours on end with massive buckets of coins. The first time I visited I wondered why they were all carrying around gigantic Coco-Cola drinks. I've been to the casino in Monte Carlo, I know what casinos ought to look like. Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Yep, it ain't James Bond territory! I personally call legalized gambling out here the poor people's voluntary tax. But don't get me started... Montanabw(talk) 20:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sutton Hoo - queries

Hi Ealdgyth - I have a couple of queries regarding the Sutton Hoo article that I'm attempting to get to GA. Can you advise? Many of the footnotes each list several sources - is this OK or do they need splitting or thinning out? Also, the enormous bibliography is written in a mixture of different (and indifferent) styles. Is it considered OK for me to go ahead and use templates (currently not used) to improve the bibliography? --Hel-hama (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC) (previously amitchell125 but you inspired me to find an A-S nickname!)

If I was you, I'd suggest that on the talk page first. Johnbod's done some work on the article and he's not usually a fan of templates, as I recall. You'll also need to resolve the split template at the top... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Ealdgyth, I'll follow your advice.--Hel-hama (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Gerard (archbishop of York)

I'm a bit bothered about the article's name, as we're using "Archbishop of York" in the text but "archbishop of York" in the title. Anyway:

Lead
  • "As a result of that dispute, Gerard secured papal recognition of York's claim to jurisdiction over the church in Scotland." I can't see how it was a result of the dispute.
  • "In the Investiture Controversy, he worked towards securing a compromise between the claims of the king and the claims of Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury ...". Seems a bit obtuse; I think we need to explain briefly what the controversy was about.
  • "Gerard was known for his patronage of learning, to the extent that he urged one of his clergy to study the Hebrew language." I think the significance of that encouragement (it was uncommon to study the language at that time, indicative of heresy or secret Judaism) needs to be made clear.

Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't. Get. Me. Started. On. The. F***ing. Title. (mutters). It is not MY choice. I just didn't feel like fighting and edit warring over and over and over again about it. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
#1. Reworded to "During the dispute..." #2. I can't believe you expect a short explanation of the Investiture Controversy... (giggles). Wow. Um. Yeah. I'll try. #3. Added. (Im still giggling at the "explain briefly what the controversy was about" (snickers)). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Archbishop
  • "The pope decided against the king, but Gerard and two other bishops claimed that the pope had assured them that the decrees would not be enforced." Why decrees in the plural? There only seems to be one decree, that to do with the investiture dispute.
  • We mention Gerard's attempts to reform his cathedral clergy twice, once in the second paragraph and then we repeat that material with some additions in the final paragraph.
  • "Gerard continued to oppose Anselm's attempts to assert Canterbury's primacy, but the two were reconciled before Anselm's death." As Anselm died a year after Gerard that seems a rather strange thing to say. Should that be before Gerard's dearh?
Death and legacy
  • "Gerard was associated with the anonymous author of the Quadripartitus and the Leges Henrici Primi, two 12th-century law books." Associated in what way? Suspected of being their author? He commissioned them?

Malleus Fatuorum 17:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I've finished with the questions now, but I'll take a last polishing run through later this evening. Probably best to do that once you've made your corrections anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 20:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

#1. Actually, there were a number of decrees against lay investiture of bishops... (our article on the Controversy is sorta sucky, but I'm not motivated enough to deal with it) I've clarified a bit further. #2. I've moved that first mention down with the others... #3. You are correct, I have always had an issue with thinking Anselm died in 1107, ever since I started studying the dang guy 25 years ago.. (and for the record, I really dislike studying Anselm..). #4. This one's tricky... We know Gerards wasn't the author of the two works. We know, however, from the works, that he was an associate of whoever the author was. (Unfortunately, this doesn't really help us pin down who the author was) Suggestions on how to word it to make it clearer? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
My best offering is "was an associate of", which is less ambiguous than "associated with", as it doesn't leave open the possibility that Gerard and the author might be considered by some to be one and the same. Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Went with that... I've never been really happy with the other phrasing. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
That looks better. I think I'm about done now, but old Theobald's still at FAC isn't he? Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
He's at four supports now so should probably be promoted on the next promotion spree. Next up is a total change of pace ... Fairfax Harrison. It'll be a hard slog, I wrote most of the prose myself .. so you can guess how much work it'll need. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)