User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 62

RfA

So, it looks like I'll go ahead and take the plunge. I asked Wehwalt if he'd nom, but there are open slots for co-noms. Dweller, Ritchie333, Iazyges, and WereSpielChequers have also expressed interest. Anyone else?
Current plan is to get past Saturnalia stuff (ends on the 23rd) and then deal with the paperwork, hopefully going live sometime on the 24th. I will be gone to the in-laws the weekend of New Years, but I will have internet access there so could deal with any last minute questions then if needed. I suspect most questions/problems will occur early in the process, however. So, shall we have a cage match for the honor of co-noming? (I really didn't expect to have so many folks who I don't interact with much come out of the woodwork to offer to co-nom). I'd be honored if Iridescent would consider... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively we could all co-nom, like what happened at Ivanvectors RFA. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

That'd be what.. five (or six if Iri took the invite)... even I think that might be a bit much... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I will be happy to nom, or conom, or as you please.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned at Ivanvector's RfA, Pedro 2 had six nominators and it passed virtually unopposed. But that was in the good ole days. My ego's fine with you rejecting me, so long as I can get in a nice early support. Perhaps if you create Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ealdgyth now and transclude it when you're ready, we can all fiddle faddle with it - including you? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I planned to start the page maybe this afternoon but more likely tonight. We'll see how the day's errands go... it is 22 December, so it's going to be a bit crazy out there. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

When I said "now", I didn't mean 'this minute' ;-) You do it when you're good and ready. And bon chance. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You probably don't want me as a nominator. My record as an RFA nom is awful (four nominations, one pass), and a nomination statement from me will also coax too many cranks and crazies out of the woodwork who otherwise might be tempted to sit this one out. If you want more noms, I'd suggest looking round for people who are active in the areas where you're likely to be challenged for a lack of activity, as if the regular AFD-closers, WP:PERM-granters etc are publicly saying they support you, that goes a long way to reassuring those people who might be concerned that you'll wade into areas where you don't know what you're doing. KrakatoaKatie might be a good choice, if you know her; she's active in a lot of nuts-and-bolts areas without managing to piss too many people off. ‑ Iridescent 15:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

There are people I haven't pissed off yet? Where? Gotta go rectify that! ;-) Seriously, though, I'm not the best choice right now. I have three of the last six successful candidacies (if Ivanvector's continues along), and while that's great, I don't want people to get RFA nominator fatigue or think I'm trying to pack in my favorite people or something. Which is weird because you're all my favorite people. :-) I'll follow along at RFA - good luck! Katie^talk 16:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I have a 100% success rate (n=1, years ago) but would be delighted if wanted. But then I suspect many of my nutters are more active and current than Ealdgyth's Bulgarians & others.... What Iri says makes sense, but since very many people know you, I wouldn't go beyond them myself. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm in Poundland buying cheap Christmas tat, when I'm done I'll create the nom if Whewalt or anybody else doesn't get there first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritchie333 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This is going to sound silly, but ideally don't go live over the holiday season. Daft as this sounds there are people who will oppose an RFA simply for you running over the holiday season. I think they argue that you are "evading scrutiny" by doing so, though knowing this place I don't see how you could get more scrutiny at RFA than doing it when people have most time on their hands. ϢereSpielChequers 16:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I've seen exactly that happen, irrational as it might seem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've never nominated anyone for admin, so my record could be 100% or 0% depending on your glass half full versus half empty perspective (me, I think it is cracked). But, Ealdgyth, you are someone for whom I would make an exception. I honestly don't know if it would help (for the sake of disclosure, I've supported that Eric chap in the past, in dramah circumstances, so that might count against the idea), but my offer is there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I have put something up at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ealdgyth. FWIW I have only done a couple of nominations, but they've all been successes except for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yash! (and I think there's a strong opinion from elsewhere that should have been a pass) and Ivanvector looks to be continuing that theme. You don't have to run over the holiday season if you don't want to; there's no time limit for leaving an RfA "parked" (I have one RfA that's been queued in this state for about six weeks). You can also back out of this now if you want (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dodger67 2 was written and subsequently deleted - it may run next year). Anyway, have a look and see what you think. For the standard question 3, you could mention that trip to DRN re: Time Team's claim that we've got the precise location of the Battle of Hastings wrong all these years. I see a civil conflict that was resolved by basic discussion, while the other party threw around mild references to WP:OWN, you didn't and stood your ground, so I've got no problem with it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that you remove the "this user is busy..." template from this page before you post an RfA. :) Good luck, but I don't see any reason to think you're anything less than a fully qualified candidate for the dubious privilege of adminship. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

And perhaps also the bribery joke, as there will always be someone with more literalism than humour. Good luck with it, am confident you'll win easily. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Just let me know if you'd like me to draft something. My thought was to say much of what Ritchie333 said but to go more to the FAC side.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Wehwalt - go ahead and add something to the page. I'll try to work on the questions today or tomorrow - somehow, for someone not celebrating Christmas, I've spent most of the last few days dealing with ... Christmas. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I dunno who's refereeing the selection of co-noms, but as I see only one nomination currently, I'm going to dive right in, in a fabulous misapplication of BRD, in the hope no-one Rs. And heaven help anyone who Ds. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Ealdgyth, I just wanted to say that I, too, would be very happy to act as co-nom, but I'm not sure how much weight my name would carry at RfA! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Update

Am utterly swallowed by non-wiki work. Will be the weekend before I can consider starting on the questions. ARGH! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Have started answering questions. Am open to feedback on them, if anyone has any. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts. I think you've been honest and up-front about everything. I checked the diffs and archives on Q3 and all of your comments pass WP:CIVIL, so no problem there. I got one or two opposes in my RfA for taking Eric's side in a dispute, but nothing major. Saying you do not want to touch SPI is fine; we have an admin running on 99% support right now who can handle that! I'd expect questions on various aspects of main page maintenance, somebody always seems to pose a "how would you manage these usernames" question, there might be a vague "how do you deal with an editor that's wrong" question too. Other than that I can't really say much more than bite the bullet and see what happens. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see anything I'd change.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Should I wait for the New Year or are we good to go? I'm not sure on timing, I don't want to seem like I'm trying to avoid scrutiny. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we should be good to go if you're up for it - just accept the nomination and leave the transclusion for somebody else to balls up ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd support as it is. No more conoms needed, Ritchie's "better half" is the nominator ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Nominate today, with thanks for the TFA Pain fitzJohn, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

This would span the New Year, I think that would be fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Just got a "rush" job to do ... so it'll be after I return from the in-laws for New Years. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
463		Louis VII of France (talk)	Add sources
187		Becket (1964 film) (talk)	Add sources
8		Roumois (talk)	Add sources
148		Anglo-Normans (talk)	Add sources
48		Ballyfermot (talk)	Add sources
195		Duchy of Brittany (talk)	Add sources
28		Forestry law (talk)	Cleanup
2,081		Viking Age (talk)	Cleanup
2,373		Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation (talk)	Cleanup
65		Roman Catholic Diocese of Angoulême (talk)	Expand
312		France in the Middle Ages (talk)	Expand
358		Video game addiction (talk)	Expand
794		Myth of the flat Earth (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
142		Electronic tagging (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
20		Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
8		Angevin coat of arms (talk)	Merge
889		Viking expansion (talk)	Merge
8		Robert Pullen (talk)	Merge
72		Antipope Anacletus II (talk)	Wikify
59		Clara Green Carl (talk)	Wikify
14		William A. Marra (talk)	Wikify
10		Cham calendar (talk)	Orphan
5		Khalifa Muhammad Turki al-Subaiy (talk)	Orphan
3		Dina Posada (talk)	Orphan
281		House of Normandy (talk)	Stub
6		Ostap Vyshnya (talk)	Stub
113		Common year (talk)	Stub
51		Slavic calendar (talk)	Stub
24		Sign of a Victory (talk)	Stub
609		Sunway TaihuLight (talk)	Stub

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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jacob Gens

The article Jacob Gens you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jacob Gens for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Gens

	Congratulations, it's a...
	...Wikipedia Good Article. Shearonink (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! And thank you for the thorough review. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

For further amusement

I am not sure you saw this but likely you found/will find it funny.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

LOL. I do a daily "this day in history" post on facebook ... some days obviously were just battles and death and .. yeah, 1016 was a rotten rotten year. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

TPSs ...

Can anyone find a good DYK hook for the recently promoted Jacob Gens? I didn't put it through DYK when I started it because I couldn't find one then... but if anyone can find one now... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

RfA squared

Are we good to go on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ealdgyth? Certainly Schwede66's RfA, running on 100% support as I write this, seems to suggest the community is very keen for admin candidates with lots of writing experience. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll be home from the in laws tonight, so we can go live anytime after that. I didn't figure it was a good idea to start it while I wasn't able to devote much time to answering questions. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Ironically I am visiting the (ex) in-laws tonight. When you're happy to proceed, formally accept the RfA in the space provided, then I (or, more likely given the interest in this, somebody else) can transclude it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd be tempted to oppose your RfA on the grounds that becoming one of the bosses might divert you from what you do so well, writing great articles. But I won't of course. Eric Corbett 12:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Nice to see somebody who is a good article writer standing for administrator rather than the usual hat-collecting type. However, I would like to question Ritchie's AfD count. That kind of argument (counting "correct" votes) encourages conformist me-too voting. --Hegvald (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Going to do this in the morning, got home and am just exhausted. That's not a good time to be messing with transcluding things... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I accepted. Richie333 - you want to do the transclusion honors? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

All done - and as expected you have a trickle of supports already within minutes. Good luck! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you - I'm busy setting up a book club discussion group on Facebook .... a bunch of friends are getting together to discuss banned books and read them... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like Fahrenheit 451 (without the matches and flamethrowers). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

And that's all I have to say on the matter. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ealdgyth!

Happy New Year!

Ealdgyth,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Good luck at RfA. I'll have my support !vote up soon. Donner60 (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

changes

Like any editor, I can make many types of changes, not just category changes. What is the problem here? Are you just an edit watcher of mine? Hmains (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• You also seem to changing your articles in a manner not prescribed by the MOS MOS:CIRCA that calls for use of c. or the {{circa}} template, never this [[circa|c.]] which I have never seen anywhere else in WP except now in your articles. Hmains (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

the value of your edits has now been satisfactorily explained to me and I believe the articles are now back to how you had edited them. Sorry to bother you. Hmains (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

A little favour

I haven't seen you around FAC for a while, but I just wondered if you could cast your eyes over this. It's Coloman, King of Hungary and I'd just feel a little happier if a medievalist had a look at it, and your name sprung to mind! If not, no worries. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I will try. I did glance at the sources used and they mostly seem quite legit (at least the non-Hungarian published ones). The only wince was from using Runiciman, who is a bit dated at this point, but I'll try to take a closer look this afternoon. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Last year I went on a tour of Israel and the expert guide - an archaeologist not a historian - recommended Runciman in his reading list. I suggested he read Asbridge but he was not interested. I also see that Runciman has been reprinted in English (by Penguin) and in German in the 2010s. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, Runciman's a classic ... people SHOULD read him but... it's like reading Gibbon or Freeman. It's good to touch base with the basics... but .... its not necessarily current. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree (although I have to admit I had to look up Freeman). My point was that the expert guide still regards Runciman as the authority and is not interested in modern interpretations. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Sarastro1 - do you want an old fashioned source review or a full review? And, since I'm in a bit of a content lull, do you want more of the old-fashioned reviews at FAC? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll just chip in to say that currently the source/image review backlog is longer than normal, so a couple of those would help if you have the time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

For that particular article, I think a full review would be good. I've recused as coordinator and gone in myself too. But, some old-fashioned source reviews would be fantastic. As Mike says, we have a bit of a backlog at the moment and it's always a pleasure to see you at FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Tomorrow - I'll try. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

That's enough for today. Off to work on other stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

edits

you are correct, of course. Sorry Hmains (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

no worries, it's easy to get busy editing and not notice something. Thank you for the informative edit summary ... it was appreciated when you have 1800 articles on your watchlist it's nice to see a fuller edit summary for an automated edit. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Always I can do better. AWB is only semi-automated of course. It searches through article lists and presents them to me one at a time in an edit screen with the changes I have directed it to make. I then read and further edit and finally save or discard my edit. I read and read this particular line and it looked ok to change, not so; the AWB edit screen is not so nice as a regular edit screen that I expand and see better in various ways. It is only a tool, but often useful for my type of work Hmains (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edit Boniface of Savoy (bishop)

Hi Ealdgyth, My mistake. I changed it because my programme detected a difference in date between the corresponding year article and person article. Futher investigation of the linked German, Spanish and French article all stated 14 July 1270 as the date of death. I guess one of us will have to correct those wiki's :) Mill 1 (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Dean and Chapter of St Paul's page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations

I think it's quite safe at this point to congratulate you on your overwhelming election to adminship. It appears that your RfA will be the all-time fourth or fifth place on WP:RFX200.

Also, I'm very sorry to hear of your mother's passing away—I offer my sincerest condolences and sympathies. For the record, I understand first-hand what you experienced in taking care of an ailing elderly person, although you apparently did it for a very lengthy period of time. Biblio (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for both, I appreciate the thoughts. Now to just not hit that "block" button on my watchlist by mistake....Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you...

In lieu of ThankSpam....

		Thank you
		Thank you for the support and encouraging words at my RfA. Your support will not be mis-placed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

250 supports and 0 opposes on your RFA! Wow! I'm not a barista, but I hope you'll enjoy this cup of coffee. It's made with freshly roasted and hand-ground coffee beans (Fair Trade certified), filtered through a real French press, and poured with absolute perfection and precision to protect the precious, precious beans of gold... Okay, I'm not a barista, but I do like coffee, and I hope you do too! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Email

Hi there, I sent you an email on behalf of the Signpost. Thanks, Go Phightins! 04:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Oxford University Press

Hello! I just wanted to let you know that I've finished renewing your Oxford University Press Accounts. You should be good to go now! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Also congratulations on your recent RFA :D --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Congratulations on becoming an administrator! Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
8		Edmund Audley (talk)	Add sources
590		Korematsu v. United States (talk)	Add sources
16		Robert Neville (bishop) (talk)	Add sources
41		Thomas Arundel (talk)	Add sources
10		Adam Marsh (talk)	Add sources
18		Richard FitzNeal (talk)	Add sources
16		Francesco Alidosi (talk)	Cleanup
4		Esteban Gabriel Merino (talk)	Cleanup
7		Federico di Sanseverino (talk)	Cleanup
8		Suburbicarian Diocese of Porto e Santa Rufina (talk)	Expand
7		Feudal barony of Plympton (talk)	Expand
29		Rouen Castle (talk)	Expand
14		Marmaduke Constable (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
15		Johannes de Thurocz (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
32		Brooke Westcott (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
141		Dutch Formosa (talk)	Merge
13		Dutch colonial rule of Taiwan (talk)	Merge
8		Jan Boxill (talk)	Merge
85		Council of Clermont (talk)	Wikify
27		Humbert III, Count of Savoy (talk)	Wikify
5		Richard Curteys (talk)	Wikify
3		San Nicolás de Soria (talk)	Orphan
6		Battle of Val-de-Saire (talk)	Orphan
2		Anne Lee Delano (talk)	Orphan
5		Ralph Walpole (talk)	Stub
3		George Bland (talk)	Stub
18		Sylvia Vrethammar (talk)	Stub
6		Richard Gravesend (talk)	Stub
3		Robert de Sancta Agatha (talk)	Stub
5		John Dalderby (talk)	Stub

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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Jersey Act scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Jersey Act article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 13 January 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 13, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

(whimpers) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry V. It's currently 1494 characters, and needs to be between 1025 and 1175, if you're interested in doing the honors. - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I got it. Gratz on your RFA, it's going like I thought it would. - Dank (push to talk) 03:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Btw, I don't understand "all of their ancestors" ... all non-cloned living things have ancestors back to single-celled organisms. I'm assuming that's not what they wanted. The Thoroughbred article says they all trace their ancestry through "three stallions originally imported into England in the 17th century and 18th century, and to a larger number of foundation mares of mostly English breeding." ... is that on the right track? - Dank (push to talk) 03:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

what is meant is that all of their ancestors who were alive during the time frame covered by the Thoroughbred stud books were registered in those books. Many American Thoroughbreds have gaps in their ancestry, one or more ancestors who would have been in the time frame to be in the stud books, but lack the records to allow those ancestors to be known. For example, Lexington (horse), one of his ancestors has a maternal dam line that traces to a mare who is of unknown ancestry and was not registered in the British Thoroughbred stud book. Does that make sense? Ealdgyth - Talk 11:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure. We can finesse it with just "Thoroughbred ancestors" (which I've done), or we could change that to, say, "ancestors since [year]" or "... since [event]". - Dank (push to talk) 13:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Go with Thoroughbred ancestors" ... it's the least incorrect. Nothing about Thoroughbred history is clear-cut to non-horse people, unfortunately. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the article about "not a bishop", and for "Photos should be good, as I took one and the other is from 1857! Malleus should be considered a co-nom, if someone kind would fix that please? " - If you don't mind, could you look at my FAC where 2 old images don't have the proper license, and I don't know how to fix that? - Your photo is good ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Can a fella get a block up in here?

Got some minor mopping for you. Congrats... BusterD (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your request for adminship

Congrats! Your new uniform.

Hi Ealdgyth, with great delight I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Congratulations for both your successful nomination and for your place on WP:RFX200, where you now possess the fourth-most supported RfA of all time and received no opposition; few editors have received such resounding community support - your result is impressive. As always, the administrators' reading list is worth reading and the new admin help pages are most certainly available if you feel that you might require some practice with the tools in a safe environment prior to applying them elsewhere on the project. Good luck with your adminship! Acalamari 14:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations on achieving zero opposes and the highest number of supports on a first-time RfA ever (although technically this should be the second highest because Phaedriel's first RfA was opened without their consent). Brilliant. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who supported and helped. The traditional "thank you" spam will go out later .. have to take hubby to the doctor, his stomach isn't happy. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Congratulations! -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 14:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Well done. Don't let it get in the way of your brilliant contributions. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Congrats! That was impressive and inspiring. Victoriaearle (tk) 14:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Inordinately pleased to see this, well done! Hope hubby gets better asap...! Nortonius (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations on your impressive result! Couldn't be more pleased to see my name pushed further down the WP:RFX200 list so soon. See you around the mop closet! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• And to think you were worried you'd fail. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations. And to respond to your acceptance statement, the praise is indeed well-deserved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations from me as well. In case you didn't know, your RfA had the highest total support tally in almost nine years, and the highest ever without any opposes. In my opinion, that speaks volumes about how much the community trusts you. I for one thought you were an administrator already. Kurtis ^(talk) 14:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• ...and well deserved, too. — sparklism ^hey! 16:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations. You certainly don't see an RFA like this very often -- or at all. Mkdw ^talk 17:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations for adminship !! CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations! Your work on Wikipedia – far beyond the RfA – is extraordinarily impressive. Thank you for all that you do. Mz7 (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Beyond inevitable. Congratulations. Cassianto^Talk 18:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• 250 supports and zero opposes. Incredible. Congratulations! —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations! I never thought I would see an RfA like this one. Biblio (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Commisserations! Congratulations! One of the most impressive RFAs I have ever seen! I think you'll be held to a very high standard by the naysayers, even though they didn't dare to say nay. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 03:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• As an 'old hand' (I've been a sysop since Saturday), I thought I'd welcome you onto the team. :) Very well done; an impressive RfA. Congrats! Schwede66 05:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations! Wow, 250 supports, 0 opposes. 4th highest number of supports ever; well deserved. Good luck. Donner60 (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations from me too! Now go grab your mop. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations! --Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

And I used the tools yesterday to recreate a salted article Richard Middleton (Lord Chancellor). Go me! I didn't break the wiki! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Whoa, you now have almost untold power to cause havoc, and all you can think of doing with it is improving our content? ;-) Seriously, that was a very impressive RfA, and it really showed the value people place on your contributions here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's me. Ms. Havoc-and-destruction. (Although the cats seem to think I'm Ms. "Slave-that-should-feed-the-cats-more-often", but I digress...) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

welcome to the mop corps

Congratulations on your successful RFA! I have nothing better to do than to place blue boxes on talk pages, so allow me to impart the words of wisdom I received from the puppy after my RFA passed – almost ten long, sordid, why didn't I-find-a-better-hobby years ago:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. (I got nothing here. It's inevitable.) Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. Without exception, you will pick the wrong one to do. (See #5.) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. (You'll attract many more of those now, because mop. They must like to drink the dirty water in the bucket.) Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block, because really, what else is there to live for? Remember that when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. It will not be a personal attack because we are admins and, therefore, we are all rouge anyway. Finally, remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. Katietalk 17:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better. All rights released under GFDL.

Very pleased to welcome you! Doug Weller talk 17:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Congratulations! Not even the serial opposers dared to mess it up! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• • Belated congrats! I cannot think of a person more deserving of the respect and prestige of... well of respect and prestige, not sure if this honorable mop grants it, but congrats anyway! Montanabw^(talk) 21:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Congratulations!!! --joe decker^talk 05:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Congratulations. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK

Just a note that the nominator has replied to some of your concerns at Template:Did you know nominations/Léon Davent. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:ERRORS

	The book of Errors presented to Ealdgyth
	... in honour of her joining the mistake crew. Delighted to see you bringing your common sense and editing skills to this new arena. Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

John Crakehall DYK nomination

I've reviewed John Crakehall at DYK with some pretty minor quibbles for you. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

That time again...

Find the DYK hook! Any talk page stalkers have good suggestions for a hook for Hugh de Beauchamp (sheriff)? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

... that Hugh de Beauchamp is considered to be the first feudal baron of Bedford? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Pantulf

On 23 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Robert Pantulf, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1088 the Anglo-Norman nobleman Robert Pantulf was accused of stealing 6 pounds (2.7 kg) of silver from the nuns of Holy Trinity Abbey, Caen? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Pantulf. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Robert Pantulf), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Schwede66 12:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

John, King of England

re reverted edit - the preceding text makes it clear that the father has died, so the word 'posthumous' is redundant. All sons who survive their fathers are posthumous! Clivemacd (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The preceding text is "The problems amongst John's wider family continued to grow. His elder brother Geoffrey died during a tournament in 1186, leaving a posthumous son, Arthur, and an elder daughter, Eleanor." I think you're misunderstanding what posthumous means. Posthumous means "born after their father's death" .. .not "survived their father". See dictionary.com, the third definition. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I wasn't familiar with that specific meaning of 'posthumous'. In that case the word has significance in this context and your revert stands! Clivemacd (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for John Crakehall

On 25 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Crakehall, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although the medieval Lord High Treasurer John Crakehall was a clergyman sworn to celibacy, he had a daughter to whom he left part of his estate? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Crakehall. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, John Crakehall), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Schwede66 00:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Nike-X source review

I started on this yesterday; can you let me know if you feel any of the points I skipped are still outstanding in your view? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like you've concentrated on the crux of the matter. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
96		Alan Rufus (talk)	Add sources
4		Nick J. Townsend (talk)	Add sources
462		Flying boat (talk)	Add sources
248		Strait of Gibraltar crossing (talk)	Add sources
1,348		Drum kit (talk)	Add sources
7,396		Sheriff of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire (talk)	Add sources
56		Virginian Railway (talk)	Cleanup
1,389		Maghreb (talk)	Cleanup
33		Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Middle Ages (talk)	Cleanup
477		Invasions of the British Isles (talk)	Expand
413		Enter Shikari (talk)	Expand
50		Breton horse (talk)	Expand
41		William Boleyn (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
49		Popular revolts in late-medieval Europe (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
82		Ilmarinen (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
35		Noriker (talk)	Merge
45		Mongol raids into Palestine (talk)	Merge
16		Honour (feudal barony) (talk)	Merge
728		Alfred Adler (talk)	Wikify
9		Robert Davenport (talk)	Wikify
2		Hornchurch Priory (talk)	Wikify
7		Great Chrysanthemum Diamond (talk)	Orphan
3		Boughton Lodge (talk)	Orphan
3		Canterbury election of 1205 (talk)	Orphan
3		William fitzWimund (talk)	Stub
10		Robert Fitz Richard (talk)	Stub
10		Roger d'Ivry (talk)	Stub
9		Katharine Keats-Rohan (talk)	Stub
288		To a Louse (talk)	Stub
238		Is There for Honest Poverty (talk)	Stub

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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

The nominator has replied to your comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Léon Davent. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Revert summary

Hiya. I just want to call your attention to your recent revert on the MOS page. I will not give my opinion on the revert as that has nothing to do with this issue. Your revert summary gave no explanation for its basis, an explanation that is explicitly required when reverting a GF edit. I'm bringing this to your attention not as a lover of rules (which I'm not) or a fan of process (which I am). My motivation for this is simply that the MOS guideline pages are seen by some (rightly or wrongly) as less-than-collaborative places to participate. Explanation-free reverts, viewed in that light, foster this perception (particularly among those who are often at odds with style guidance). Have a great Tuesday (like that's even possible). Primergrey (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Since the edits I reverted had been previously reverted several times ... and I pointed to WP:BRD, I'm kinda thinking I did leave an explanation. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

So they were. My mistake. Primergrey (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Hugh de Beauchamp (sheriff)

On 1 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hugh de Beauchamp (sheriff), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Hugh de Beauchamp is considered to be the first feudal baron of Bedford? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hugh de Beauchamp (sheriff). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hugh de Beauchamp (sheriff)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Henry III

Calling an edit "utterly irrelevant" is not courteous.Wjhonson (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for making the Robert de Todeni page.162.212.89.6 (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Richard Fitzurse

Not sure what you intended there, but I don't think it worked... :( Peridon (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, I see from Ian Rose's talk page that you are happy to undertake source reviews at FAC - and thanks again for the work you did on the Henry Morgan review. I hope to put Operation Mincemeat through the process shortly (it's recently gone through a MILHIST A-Class review, so it is in fairly good shape). I recently had problems with an 'extended source review' on Morgan article, (as a fist time nominator I had to go through the additional steps of close paraphrase checks, source checks etc – see here and here), which did not end up well for the review. Although I disagree with one reviewer who wanted to see more use of primary sources, I would like to ensure that Operation Mincemeat does not have the same problems when I take it to FAC. Would you be prepared to have a look at the sourcing – particularly along the lines of the reviews by Laser brain and Sarahsv – to ensure I don't come a cropper second time round? Many thanks and all the best, The Bounder (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

As there is something of a queue building up, and as a "my" article isn't even a nomination yet, please feel free to leave mine until after the current noms are done - there is no rush on mine at all. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering if you are going to review Æthelflæd, which has been at FAC a while now? Johnbod (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll see how my week looks and try to get to both. Real life outside wikipedia has been hectic this month so far. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Ealdgyth, hope you're not feeling overwhelmed by all the attention in such a short space of time, but I was also going to ask if you wanted to check out Gabriel Pleydell‎ -- Dudley (among others) has gone over it so I was considering closure but if you'd like the opportunity before then I'll happily keep it open. Hchc2009, same goes for you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)