User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 11

Vita Sancti Wilfrithi
Like you asked, I authored a short article on the Life of St Wilfrid. You might want to expand it with more material. I only have limited sources on this at the moment, and it isn't important enough for me to go get some (as I'm doing other research atm and my library card is maxed out). All the bestest, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool! I'm gathering for Frithegod, so don't feel you need to pick that up. I know all about maxed out library cards... I'm still buried in a big pile of stuff I'm attempting to get digested. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wilfrid says two thirds of the book is devoted to Northumbrian affairs, Vita Sancti Wilfrithi says one third ? Ning-ning (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually figure out what Goffart meant by that assertion ... Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, now... Goffart's not as bad as Markus or MacMullen. Is it with what I'm saying in Wilfrid or with Goffart's writings? (Checking to see if I need to make things clearer in Wilfrid) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Updated foal pics...
Here! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

1968 Illinois e-quake
I think I've added the correct publisher, the website never got back to me so I'll e-mail them again asking for the official source. However, seeing as the other newspaper source on that website was from the McLeansboro Times-Leader I think it's pretty obvious that's where the article came from. However, I'll double check if you like.  ceran thor 13:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Settlers
I'll take a gander through my sources and see if any of them meet WP notability standards. Its possible one or the other served in the colonial assembly or something. Geraldk (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No dice on notability. Will keep an eye out as I'm working on other articles though. Geraldk (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. My family seems to have specialised in being obscure! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

RS at FAR
Ealdgyth, do you have time for Featured article review/Kung Fu Hustle? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Popped a quick note over there, I didn't watchlist it though Ealdgyth - Talk 23:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick question on sourcing
I'm fascinated by weird and strange stories, a good source for which is the ForteanTimes. I'm curious though to know whether you'd consider it to be a reliable source on, say, an article about the Green children of Woolpit.

I can probably guess what your initial reaction is likely to be, but its articles do look to be more carefully researched and cited than you might expect. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Published magazine, by a reasonably sized publishing company. I wouldn't use them to source something BLP contentious, but for those lovely "strange but true" things, would probably be safe enough, assuming they aren't trying to claim UFOs have abducted JFK and held him for ransom all these years... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I was specifically thinking of those green children, who if they ever existed at all lived in the 12th century, so not a BLP or an alien abduction. Thanks. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for a source checkup
Hey Ealdgyth, whenever you get a chance could you look over Halo Wars's sources and pop any concerns on the talk page? Thanks, -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I just replaced two and posted a semi-coherent defense of the other at the FAC page. Featured article candidates/Halo Wars/archive1. Thanks for your time. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Already on it. I am on the BALL today at FAC (snickers) .. it's raining outside, can't do much else. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for your opinion
Hi Ealdgyth, as you know, I would like to eventually bring Battle of Bosworth Field to FAC. Someone added a new source since your check, and I would like to know if it is fine (diff). Basically it is A. L. Rowse's Bosworth Field and the Wars of the Roses (1966) by Wordsworth Military Library. Jappalang (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Isbn as given is off. World Cat entriesThe 1966 edition isn't going to have an ISBN, most likely. Looks like he's using 1998 reprint. Once he gets that straightened out, and make the citation fit the rest of the citation format used, should be fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Coral Sea FAC
I've responded to your comments. I appreciate the constructive feedback. Cla68 (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion started. Cla68 (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheadle Hulme
Hi, would you mind striking the second to last point in your comments here. I have since removed the reference in the article, so it's no longer an issue. Just for clarity, you know? Thanks for checking it over.  Majorly  talk  13:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheatsheet
Hi Ealdgyth: I notice you used this term at FAC (Austr. MilHist nom.). What is it? Also, in relation to Fac, I asked PMAnderson to take a content look (it's his area), and he's concerned about chained secondary sources, but is mostly away now for a week. He said: "The nominator has been doing odd things with the footnotes; where a modern secondary source has specified the ancient primary source, our editor has given both. He claims, now, to have consulted all the primary sources listed, even the Bollandists; could you see whether the present footnotes describe the situation clearly?" I feel a little out of my depth; can you advise? Tony  (talk)  14:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet. It's where I park websites that have managed to make the grade for almost always reliable. I've got a notoriously middle-aged mind and will forget details if I don't have a refresher occasionally. I've already popped in on the DP article, I'm not as up to speed on Late Antique history as I used to be but it still appears that the nominator has not really gotten off the beaten track here. I'll note that Deacon likes the approach used in DP, although I'm not a big fan of it. If you read the GA review, you'll note I told him that it was going to come up at FAC, and he may have to strip out the primary source footnotes, as honestly they don't add that much, but his system isn't something that's against the FA criteria either. Certainly his secondary sources are good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Carucage
Review done. See review page. Looks good - not a lot being sought I think. cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

For your amusement
They say everyday you learn something new. Here's something new for you, from the article Holy See – United Kingdom relations: "Diplomatic links between the Kingdom of England and the Holy See were established in 1479." Gotta love this place sometimes. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. My. I'm... impressed. Where the hell did they find that (bad) fact? (thinks of Wilfrid endlessly going back and forth to Rome... then all those exchanges between William I and Rome... then of course we have the whole papal fief thing under John...) Did you see my newest creation? Feudal aid. I can't summon the energy to do much beyond that... feudal institutions were never my strong suit. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Green Green Grass
In reference to your removal on the featured article page, how do I propose the article to become featured?--The Music Collector (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I noted on your talk page, you need to go through the Featured Article Candidates process Ealdgyth - Talk 00:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Feudal aid
That's a good article! --Wetman (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Belated reply regarding Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907
Hi Victoria,

I have finally completed addressing all your suggestions. Please see my reply on the talk page. Thank you again for your comments, which were all extremely useful. Crum375 (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made a few more changes. Your review (if you have time) would be very much appreciated. Crum375 (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association
The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing sources
Hello, I was wondering if you'd be interested in reviewing the sources of Oklahoma City bombing. I'd like to resolve any issues before taking on FAC as there may be other more pressing issues I'll have to keep up with during the nomination. I recognize the limited time you have, and if you are unable/uninterested, then no worries, I'll be happy to deal with sources at FAC (may have to anyway). As a side note, those are some interesting images of the horses, I have ridden a few in North Dakota, but here in San Diego, there's not too much room in the city! Thanks for your help in the past with my first FA (Little Miss Sunshine), and if you need any clarification on anything, let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments at the FAC. I have responded to your comments. Let me know if any further clarification is needed. Thanks again. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied again, hopefully I addressed your concerns with the first source. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 16:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Went to the library and found the page numbers for the book source that was lacking them. Let me know if you notice any other issues that need to be addressed. Thanks again for taking a look. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Gregorian mission
Hi. Do you want to put Gregorian mission article on FA voting? It's great aricle, maybe just we can put some more picture. Best wishes,--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 09:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gregorian mission isn't quite ready for FAC yet. It'll go up when it's ready. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm all done now Ealdgyth. May God bless the Gregorian Mission and all who sail in her! :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 14:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much! Now to do some housekeeping, etc. Pictures next... whee. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * He's up. Next up is good old Urse d'Abetot. I'm feeling the urge to branch out from bishops and horses ... (I've got Robert Burnell almost ready, but am waiting on two articles before I feel like it's complete... someone needs to return those books to the library so I can check them out!) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Edward Low, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Omegapuzzle (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's you told, you vandal you. – iride  scent  20:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User blocked for disruption. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Same editor templated Maralia, the most infamous vandal. --Moni3 (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I noticed the template on Maralia's page, saw that this editor had reinserted the buggery bits and reverted them back out. Heh. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You might want to rephrase 'this editor had reinserted the buggery bits". It conjures up quite the wrong image. – iride  scent  20:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ... or perhaps the right image. I've been reverting attempts by several editors to introduce the claim that Edward Low was a homosexual for ages now. Glad to see these those two serial vandalisers Maralia and Ealdgyth get their just desserts at last though. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't even have the article watchlisted, it was just so odd to see that template on Maralia's page I had to see what was up...Ealdgyth - Talk 22:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Gregorian mission
Ealdgyth, the article looks great. I just wanted to point out what struck me otherwise it is fine. I can not finish our conversations tonight as my 17 year old is kicking me off the computer to do something important. (My Wikipedia hobby is not respected : )  Nancy Heise   talk 02:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. I think I've got most of your concerns addressed. (grins) We just got my child his own computer, which he has to use under our watchful eyes, so I can keep up with Wikipedia while he plays browser games... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard Swinefield
Review done. I'll keep an eye out. cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Featured article process
Copy of the comments I left on sandys page. So what your saying is in order to submit an article I must have written it and or have access to every book, magazine, journal, etc that is referenced in the article. First, it is not a realistic goal for you to say that in order for an editor to submit an article for FA they must have written it when dozens of people could have made potentially thousands of edits to the article. Second I typically only edit articles that I know about, in this case the Albert Einstein article is a well enough known article, with loads of easy to access references that if someone asks a question I will find the answer. I would not try and get an article about the theory of everything to FA status because I am not qualified to write it. Third, I work 2 blocks from the library of congress so if I need a book I'll go get it. This whole thing has gotten off topic. MY argument is that I was making the changes necessary to get this article to FA based on the comments I was getting from reviewers and Sandy closed it amid change after I had already been working on it for a few days. I have a very busy schedule and a full weekend and it was taking somem time to get the changes made. On a side note unless you are willing to have other than the same 5 editors submitting featured articles then you have to give us a chance to fix the problems and follow the process through and not cut it off in mid stream. Like I told Sandy, the article wasn't ready, ok but I was making the changes necessary to get it to FA. This whole thing is turning me off of the submission process and I have close to 70,000 edits, I imagine how it would feel to a less seasoned editor.--Kumioko (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to let you know that I left a final comment on Sandy's talk page. Its a shame really but I won't be meddling in FA's anymore. There are too many other tasks to do in WP to participate where I am obviously not wanted or needed.--Kumioko (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly I consider you welcome at FAC. It sounds like your circumstances are in the minority, as far as being able to get access to the sources. Understand that most nominators won't live so close to the Library of Congress, etc. That's all. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but just a suggestion for the future. If you haev any editor who submits an article for FA who is obviously making the changes needed to get the article up to status, you might want to assume good faith and give them the chance to finish it. --Kumioko (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't archive the nomination, so I'm not quite sure why you're accusing me of bad faith. (Yes, I opposed it, but I didn't say for it to be withdrawn immediately either) I'm trying to explain why the rule on significant contributors has been added, that's all. Did everyone wake up on the wrong side of the bed today, that it's time to be snappy or something?Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry didn't mean to snap at you my frustration is with Sandy.--Kumioko (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. Just been an odd day (grins). Someone's calling Malleus a racist for something really odd, etc. etc. I can certainly understand your frustration, and if you ever decide to try FAC again, feel free to do what a lot of folks do and drop me a note before hand and have me check over your referencing so it's all cleaned up before hitting FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Map
Sorry, but I doubt I can help in the time frame you need -- our moving van got here last week and things are still topsy turvy. I think it will be a while before I settle down to any real editing time again. I've been watching your FACs and wishing I had time to read them with enough attention to support them -- sorry I've been absent. When I get time again I will stop by and ask you what I can do to help; I know I owe you half a dozen favours. Mike Christie (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, we found another map. I prefer yours, but this one will work. Don't worry about the absence, I still have to get that source copied for you to send to you! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Luton Town F.C. peer review
Are you going to update your comments? :) Cheers Cliftonian  ( Talk  •  Contibs ) 14:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * First, it's not a peer review.. it's a featured articles candidate, and yes, I will. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: This Love
Hey Ealdgyth, thanks for taking the time in reviewing "This Love", I appreciate it. Just wanted to say that I've gotten your concerns. Thanks again. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  16:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Kisnorbo
I've made some edits to the Patrick Kisnorbo page. Does it pass GA? Spiderone (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made some further edits. Spiderone (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI
FYI. In case you ever run across that site in the future. Don't be fooled by that shiny BBC logo. :) TwilligToves (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

H.M.S. Pinafore
I have submitted the Pinafore article to FAC: Featured article candidates/H.M.S. Pinafore/archive1. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your careful review, rapid follow-up and good humor at FAC! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Referencing issues
Why didn't anyone bring this up in GAN or peer review? It seems like GAN should have addressed this issue. If I remember correctly, wind passed GAN without much fanfare, which did surprise me. I do make mistakes, like most other people. It seems like the FAC process is doing the job that GAN and peer review should. I've rarely had any good, human responses within peer review. Just a few random comments, and a BOT or two. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * GAN is all about who you get to review. If you'd gotten me, I'd have brought these issues up, but then you might have missed some good prose concerns, since I'm not so hot on prose reviewing. Like I said, anyone is always welcome to do a pre-FAC check for sourcing with me before going to FAC, I don't mind. If I wasn't so busy, I try to do PRs on sourcing for all PRs that state they wanna go to FAC, but my life's been kinda hectic the last few months and I haven't been able to do much. --Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's cool. I've replaced all the refs you pointed out with new ones, which should be better (most are books).  Thegreatdr (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think all the issues are resolved now. Please point out individual problems, if they still exist.  Half of the issues you mentioned had to do with coding errors within cite web, cite book, etcetera.  Thegreatdr (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

And another talkpage stalker this way comes
Hi, I've made my first stab at creating an infobox, since no such thing seems to be available for medieval texts of any kind. I've been mostly learning how to apply (read: mess with) code, but the essential parameters are there I think. The box is located here and the talkpage here. One rough example might look familiar to you : ) Could you have a peak? Cavila (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A mormaer for you
Don't know how much of your area this is, but if you fancy it and you have time, can you have a look over Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick? This I've decided will be the companion FAC for Siward (remember my superstition about the number 6?). Obviously, like all long articles, it needs comment, criticism and proofreading. Any of those services will be appreciated! :) I will make some more maps and genealogies to illustrate the article. I realise 13th-century Carrick is not exactly well known to everyone. I also plan another background paragraph on Carrick itself. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 10:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked it over, and left comments on the talk page. If you find the time, can you do the same for Urse d'Abetot, who is my next FAC? I'm tired of bishops... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know the feeling. Got bored with them myself a while back, and haven't returned since, leaving much work uncompleted. Thanks for the comments and editing. I'm really tired now after making that map and will have to get to them tomorrow. I'll also look over the Bear of Worcester when I can. How soon do you need attention for it? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be out of town this weekend, so he can't go up before next week. I'll probably plan on putting him up a week from tomorrow, makes it easier on Sandy. Bear-boy is shorter than my most recent efforts, only about 2000 words. Tonight's task was De Iniusta Vexacione Willelmi Episcopi Primi which I've been meaning to get to for about six months...Ealdgyth - Talk 02:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too. It was one of a couple of Durham texts with no articles of yet that I was vaguely planning to do (though I "plan" quite a lot). Are you planning any heights for it? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure, honestly. Manuscript studies aren't my strong suit, but it bugged me that it didn't have an article. I'll throw a DYK together for it, and then it'll probably sit around for a bit until I get the urge to avoid bishops and horses and maybe it'll go to GA. FAC probably is out, there's not THAT much out there on it, and it's pretty arcane. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Advice
Saw your note at YellowMonkey's and MF's talk pages. The article does seem to be a bit incoherent in that there is a lack of organization. Take a look at 2005 Texas Longhorns football team for a model. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but is a quick fail appropriate? There's a LOT that needs to be done to bring it up to snuff... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your call. On one hand, the article doesn't fail any of the quick-fail critera. On the other hand, the article needs a treatment for non-football editors, a background section if possible, and expansion of the lead, pretty major things. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Advice...
Okay, looking at 1950 Maryland Terrapins football team, which I just signed up to review for GAN. I'm not seeing a coherent article here. I see some lists, and some information in the lead, but nothing that ties all the dispartite information together. I'm leaning towards a quick fail, quite honestly, but would love a second opinion (or a third or fourth if any TPS wanna weigh in). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A few other things that are missing: team changes, retirements and new recruits, or trades to other teams. Also missing is information on the team structure, forwards, defenders, wingers, centremen etc, strengths and weaknesses: height, speed, tackling power etc? What was team strategy? Formations like in soccer 4-4-2, 3-5-1-1 etc or whatever I don't know what the possible tactics are but I don't see any discussed.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I failed it earlier... it just didn't seem complete enough to even have a ghost of a chance to get into shape. I think it needs some serious work, and I'm not sure it's notable enough to be on its own, since the team didn't go to a bowl game, or anything. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for Pre-FAC review
Hi there! I'm trying to get 2009 Orange Bowl ready for FAC and was wondering if you might have the time to take a look at it and check on its overall readiness. I just need to get one more of these college football bowl game articles up to featured status to complete a featured topic, and this seems like the best candidate. I know how busy you are, so I understand if you're not able to help. If that's the case, could you recommend another editor who might be able to help? JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for not saying this sooner, but thank you for the source check. I didn't see it there on the talk page until right now. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've posted the FAC for 2009 Orange Bowl now. Thank you again for your help in the pre-FAC review. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Referencing question
Hello! I was curious if you had a chance if you could review comments I made here: regarding references on an featured article. As one familiar with FA reference requirements, could you please let me know if you think that my concerns merit a FAR? If you don't think its much of a problem, I would rather not stir up a hornet nest. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 15:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okies, lets see...


 * This point "There are no sources listed within the article for any of the images provided. All facts and charts, including those in image captions, need to have a source listed on each article they are presented on. I have found there is a source listed on the images page, these need to be duplicated onto the article page and footnoted." isn't actually correct. If the picture has a source on it's image page, that's enough. Any facts listed in the captions, yes, need footnotes, but not the images themselves.
 * You'll probably get some flack about the sourcing you're wanting, but this is a contentious subject, so sourcing needs to be ironclad, so yes, contentious facts that might be challenged need to be sourced. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I think I will avoid a FAR and see if they won't mind me just to add some additional referencing myself.

"Easter egg"?
Hello. Something in this edit of yours puzzled me and I wonder if you can explain it? You referred to "Easter egg linking". Is that a standard term that would be understood by some others than yourself without explanation or examples? Can you explain what it means? What you give is not explanation, but examples, and one of your examples is that "why the sky is blue" links to "diffuse sky radiation". That link seems appropriate to me, like one I might have done myself. But given the context&mdash;that it's a sort of objection to the article&mdash;it seems you must think something is wrong with it. Can you explain why? Google leads me to this. That page says: "A virtual Easter egg is an intentional hidden message, in-joke or feature in an object such as a movie, book, CD, DVD, computer program, web page or video game." Did you think there was a hidden message or in-joke in that link? If so, it's hidden from me. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Easter egg" is a term generally used to refer to a non-intuitive link. You may find this section of the Manual of Style helpful. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Like Malleus said, the example, it's not intuitive that clicking that link would lead to that named article. Your links shouldn't lead to something the reader isn't expecting. --Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

But it's perfectly intuitive that that's what it would lead to. "Why the sky is blue" is a question whose answer is diffuse sky radiation. Why would you call it nonintuitive? You wouldn't necessarily expect those exact words as the title, but obviously if you ask a question about the color of diffuse sky radiation and and you get an article titled "diffuse sky radiation", you're getting what you expected. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Because I generally don't click links that are questions and expect to go to the answer? It's not intuitive to me, unfortunately, I can't explain it any better. And I'm not sure why it's germane to the article either, did Einstein study diffusion that extensively? (I'm asking seriously, I am a medievalist by training, I'm doing good to deal with gunpowder!) That was just an example of them in the article, I believe I gave others. In general, I found the article a bit overlinked, but that and the easter egg links weren't the main reason for opposing, which was the sourcing concerns. --Ealdgyth - Talk 00:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If the article says "why President Kennedy was not re-elected" and you click on it and the article is called "Kennedy assassination", then you wouldn't have expected that unless you already knew that Kennedy was assassinated. But if the article says "why the sky is blue", then even if you don't know the answer, "diffuse sky radiation" is, if not verbatim the title you would expect, at least a phrase the describes the topic you'd expect. I can say that confidently because in fact I don't know the answer. If you're right to say that that shouldn't be done, the fact remains that you didn't say why it shouldn't be done in any terms that would leave anyone with anything more than guesses as to what you had in mind.

(As to the question of whether the link should be in that article, I'm going to look at it further.) Michael Hardy (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not the purpose of a link to answer a question, it's to provide additional information should it be required. If in the article it's for some reason important to know why the sky appears blue then there shpuld be a short explanation of the reason, mentioning and linking the phrase "diffuse sky radiation", or something recognisably like it. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In some cases the purpose is to answer a question, even if not usually. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, but you'll have to either accept that it's held only by you, or put up a plausible defence for surprising links. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly not held only by me. The example concerning Kennedy's failure of re-election is a "surprising link", and your "surprising link" is a surprising link, but the one about "diffuse sky radiation" is not a "surprising link", since it links to what the person clicking on it would expect. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Norman Bear
I know you're away just now, but I thought I'd tell you I managed to get and print off the Alecto essays for Worcestershire. The main one is written by Ann Williams, and is very useful. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 03:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Any chance I could get a look-see at those? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

H.M.S. Pinafore
It's been promoted. Thanks for all your help! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There are times...
...when you might want to avoid appending your standard "otherwise, sources look okay" to your FAC reviews. This might be one of those times.

(Take this as lighthearted comment rather than a criticism or complaint; it brought a smile to my face.) Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, the OTHER sources in the article are okay. Granted, that's probably only 2/3s of the article, but I hate implying that the others aren't reliable enough (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hamilton Disston
Hey. I've done some copyediting and adding. I have a few other sources that may clear up any confusion if any remains. If you would take a look at the article again, I'd appreciate it. --Moni3 (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit more, I'll look at it in depth tomorrow when I have a bit more time. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Source question
Hi. I hope I didn't catch you at a bad time, as you just got back. What do you think about http://dictionary.reference.com/ for a simple definition (tandem the word)? Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like an aggregator of various dictionaries. Some of them will be reliable, some might not be. It's not always clear what dictionary is being used for the top level definition either. I'd really rather see a better known site used, or a printed dictionary. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Senedd
Just like to say "thank-you" for reviewing the references on the above article...from now on I hope my references will improve...that will be due to you! Thanks. Seth Whales (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! And welcome to FAC! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Tidfrith
I did an article on Tidfrith of Hexham. After doing it I discovered a two line dates stub under the name Tidfert, which you had done. Because of its small size I just made this a redirect to the Tidfrith dab page. Hope that's ok. I can perform a history merge if you like (i.e. temporarily delete one page, move to the location, delete and restore all in the same location). Tell me if you want me to do that. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 01:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, that works. I'm not that bothered. Hexham's a LONG way down my lists of things to do. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Silent Alarm FAC
Hey, I've found some awesome sources on DiS. I think after reading them there should be absolutely no leeway or problems with reliability. Have a look and comment when you have the time. Rafablu88 16:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Roger Bigod, 1st Earl of Norfolk
"Earl of Norfolk"? I'm going to look into it ... not sure if he was or not. Perhaps you have more info and can save me time. :) Hope you enjoyed Independence Day! Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Complete Peerage has Ralph the Staller as a possible earl in 1067, then Ralph de Gael as a possible earl of Norfolk and Suffolk in 1069, but does NOT list Roger Bigod (d. 1107) as an earl. The first earl in the Bigod line that CP lists is Hugh Bigod, d. c. 1140-1141. Will hunt further, but if CP doesn't call him earl, we certainly shouldn't be. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, I wouldn't go that far about CP. It's completely useless when it comes to early Scottish stuff (because of the difficult evidence), and I suspect its compilers would have struggled with the Anglo-Norman era stuff too. Maybe I'm wrong though. Just out of interest, does it have Gerbod the Fleming as "earl of Chester"? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Judith Green's bio Henry I just says he was sheriff. There is an article in ANS 17 about him, maybe I'll try and get that sometime this week if you don't find anything. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Gerbod is listed as such, sorta. Same for Hugh d'Avranches. But as for Roger, nothing is listing him as earl of Norfolk. I just started there, wasn't planning on finishing there (grins). Keats-Rohan's Domesday People makes no mention of any earldom, just that he was sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk. Mentions one wife, etc. etc. Barlow's William Rufus never refers to Roger as earl, but does call his son Hugh earl. Hollister's Henry I never refers to Roger as earl, calls him dapifer and sheriff. Hollister does call Roger's son Hugh, earl. Mason's William II never calls Roger earl. Douglas' William the Conqueror never calls Roger earl. When exactly Hugh was created an earl is a matter of some debate, but it happened during the Anarchy, either at Stephen's hands or at Matilda's, so it's pretty clear Roger ain't no earl. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I"ve got ANS 17, I'll do a quick skim to see if it disagrees, but I doubt it. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * NOpe, nothing about Roger being an earl. Wareham does think two wives for Roger though. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Your input on Dominant white?
Hi! MBW directed me to you. I'm hoping to get some more pairs of eyes on Dominant white to prepare it for GA review. If you find time to comment, or just have a look, I would be very grateful. All the best. Countercanter (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm adding a plug for this effort. The article is really well-researched, the organizational structure is strong and CC has been working really hard on this (PLUS putting up with me in the process!).  As far as I can see, her research looks to me to be close to impeccable (and she had to change my mind on several points, you ALL know what a challenge THAT is!).  I am too close to the article to help with a GA review because I've been tweaking style and asking annoying questions, and maybe even occasionally contributing something useful. So any help you can offer will be much appreciated!    Montanabw (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's on my list, and soon, but we're putting up the run in shed in the pasture, and while the post-holes are dug but not concreted, the priority is that, so that the horses can get back to the pasture... no pasture for them while the holes are empty! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Quest
Got to work on the article and posted remaining references at FAC for further review. ZeaLitY [  DREAM  -  REFLECT  ]  04:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * GimmeBot archived the current FAC, so I restarted. ZeaLitY [  DREAM  -  REFLECT  ]  20:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, it's a good idea to not restart immediately. It's not Gimmebot who archived it, it was Sandy on Sunday, see here. The bot just does the paperwork. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia (terminology)
Hi Ealdgyth. Can you give this FAR a look over for sources? Thanks  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 06:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. They aren't horrible, but a run through the link checker wouldn't hurt either. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 00:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Urse
Would you like me to do some work on the Urse article sometime this week? I did research for Cyneweard of Laughern, which was very useful. I think the flow of the article can be improved by using background more. E.g. if it is pointed out that the office of sheriff was a farm, meaning that the holder paid for the position and subsequently tried to make a profit, and that the Earl of Mercia and thus the king had lost so much land in the county of Worcester in the years preceding the Conquest, what Urse was doing will be more clear. And so on ... Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Go for it! I'm going to be gone next week (from the 11th to about the 17th) so I haven't been in that much of a hurry about stuff on Wiki. We're also putting up a shed in the pasture, so that's going to keep me busy this week. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright ... I'll schedule it. I guess I'll have to master your referencing system ... but in case I don't you might wanna go over it after I'm finished. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as I get full bibliographical details in the sources section, I can deal with formatting the actual footnotes. I leave Sunday morning and should be back by Friday. Any chance we'll be ready to rock after that? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you get BBC TV over there?
I don't know whether you can get BBC TV programmes in your neck of the woods, but earlier this evening I watched a documentary programme about, would you believe, the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity. It was really very interesting, and good to see some of the places you've written about, but at a couple of points I wanted to shout out "Hang on, that's not quite what happened!". :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the world of TV history shows. We have History Channel over here and sometimes watching their shows makes me want to cringe. They can get things so ... WRONG! I'll try to hunt up the show, do you have a title? Oftentimes we can get the Beeb on DVD if we hunt enough. I'd love to see photographs/video of a lot of those places. Haven't yet been to either England or Normandy yet, when we went to Europe, we wanted to do Eastern Europe because my mother swears she's going to go to England with us... (Why she wants to spend a month watching me hit every castle, battlefield, abbey ruin and cathedral, I do not know.) Oh, if you're bored, Epikleros could use some eyes. I finally got off my behind and worked it up some more. Needs some eyes from Dr. PDA, and probably a good bit of reorganization, but it's probably getting close to FAC. Won't folks freak.. it's not a bishop! Or a horse! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It was part of a two-part documentary called "How the Celts saved Britain". There's a link here to watch it, but I don't know if that'll work outside the UK. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, one suggestion made was that a significant motivation for Oswiu calling the Synod of Whitby was that during Lent marital relations were forbidden, and he was pissed off that every year his wife wasn't available until a week after his own Lent was over. Obviously I've paraphrased it a bit, but you get the idea. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I delicately touched on that in Wilfrid, I believe. More to do with "fasts" but you get the idea. (grins) And wow, I was impressed with the 207,000 views you got with GCL yesterday. Best I've done is 27,000 with Stigand! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't take much credit for Gropecunt Lane. It was User:Parrot of Doom's idea, and he did most of the grafting. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Epikleros
I'm really, really, bad at understanding family relationships, it's just a blibd spot I have. I can just about do mother, father, brother, sister, and at a push aunt and uncle, but after that I struggle. So you'll have to forgive any daft -in-law questions I may come up with. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. I need to make a chart to help illustrate the article, I just ... don't have time until I get back next week. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Butting in...I had the hardest time trying to figure out the family relationships in Rosewood massacre. I still might have some of them slightly off (great great grandmothers instead of great grandmothers or great aunts; cousins, sisters, parents). --Moni3 (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Atlases
What's the general reception to the use of atlases in FAs? I'm writing about a river and its tributaries. A source claims the name of a lake that can be an obscenity is sometimes altered to read more nicely, which is printed in a topographic atlas I'm using to keep my geography accurate. I don't really have to use the atlas in a citation, but it would be further proof of the disparate spelling, as well as some other tiny issues. --Moni3 (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think it would be fine for something like that (an alternate spelling). As long as you indicate it's an alternate, and not the "correct" name (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 11:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ælfric
So on Oxford podcasts I was listening to the Anglo-Saxon ones, and the lecturer lambasted the Ælfric of Eynsham article. He didn't give any details, just said it was wrong. I know you haven't edited the article properly but, out of curiosity, did you ever conceive any ambition for the article? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd place his accent as North Somerset, but not Bristle or WsM. If Dr S D Lee thinks it's wrong why don't 'e fix it? Ning-ning (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I was wondering the same thing. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 09:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect he's part of something I'll get around to, but gees, folks, I only have so much time. Now I have Oxford dons whining that I haven't gotten to their favourite monk? Why doesn't HE fix it (grins). In other words, no, he's not on the immediate list. (And boy, it's lovely in the northwoods of Minnesota this year. Comfy temps, blue waters, good folks, good food. I'm enjoying my vacation.) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds excellent!

What appears to have happened with the Ælfric article is that the chief contributor, Carmen Acevedo Butcher, has written a book on him, and has used her own "translations" of Ælfric's sermons. Carmen's website is (she identifies herself on her user page User:AElfric ). Ning-ning (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Precipitation (meteorology)
I know you're on vacation, but when you come back, could you review the referencing within the precipitation (meteorology) article? It was just converted over to cite web/journal/book format. I've submitted it for peer review, and would like to get referencing problems out of the way in this stage of the game, rather than dwelling on them during any future FAC run. Thanks for your consideration. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Image query
Image:Duchy of Cornwall-coa.png, the arms of the Duchy of Cornwall was recently added to Red-billed Chough. The licence is claimed to be PD, but I’d be surprised if the Duchy allows free use, including commercial purposes. Should I delete the image? . Jimfbleak -    talk to me?  15:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ask Awa? Or Jappalong? I"m not an image person... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's in copyright, as it is some graphic artist's representation of the grant of arms. If someone was to draw the arms again, using the heraldic description, and put that in the PD that would be okay. gives an explanation. Ning-ning (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks Jimfbleak -    talk to me?  19:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey
I see you were able to get to a few FACs ... do you have time today to get to these?


 * Featured article candidates/Edgar Towner/archive1


 * Featured article candidates/Battle of Bosworth Field/archive1

Thanks as always for all you do :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I got to both of them dear (hugs). We were a bit later getting home than we thought, a friend needed roofing help. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources reviewing at FAC (Oh the shame, the shame...)
I hope you didn't mind mind me jumping into FAC with some attempted sources reviews, but I didn't know when you would be able to resume, so thought I would help out. I probably haven't helped much....do you want me to desist? Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all! Two eyes are better than one. You catch things I might miss, all that. Do as many as you like! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, Brian! (And I appreciate the hugs, Ealdgyth :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Jack Coggins FAC comments
Hi. Maybe I am incorrect about this, but the Reading Eagle is a newspaper, and it is the publisher of the material, similar to a story in the The New York Times, so the publisher and not work tag is appropriate. Am I wrong? Also, I've responded to your questions, but I have to email Dcoggins (in Australia) for some of the answers. Thank you! -- Avi (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on the FAC ... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Addressed the issues; would appreciate your feedback on a question. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Military career of L. Ron Hubbard
Thanks for your comments on Featured article candidates/Military career of L. Ron Hubbard/archive1. I've addressed the issues that you raised - please see my response on the discussion page. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now resolved that last issue you raised. Thanks for your advice and support! -- ChrisO (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

North Road (stadium) FAC
Thanks for striking your comment about the sources in the North Road article. Any chance you could give the article a proper content assessment? I have a feeling I may need all the support I can get! Thanks very much. – PeeJay 22:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Horse infobox
I've added the "alt" parameter to that template as you asked. I noticed though when going the articles that use the template that there seems to be a bug in it somewhere, causing lots of whitespace at the top of some articles. I'll perhaps take a look at that when I'm feeling a bit perkier—I'm hoping that my sore throat, aching, and runny nose is just the after-effects of a hangover, not that damn flu. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh! Get better soon! And thanks muchly for the template work. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As an added bonus, one-off special free offer, I've also fixed the long-standing whitespace bug with this template. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks much, Malleus. Hope you didn't mind me trying to send the squabble elsewhere than your page yesterday... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not at all. It had nothing to do with me anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Urse (2)
Hey, can you give me a bit more time on the Urse article. I have to fully refresh my mind on the topic, and it's really tricky reformulate an existing narrative (as opposed to creating one newly composed). So far I've been gathering refs from two pieces in a notepad file, but for some reason I don't appear to have the motivation atm, and am moving only slowly. :( Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. (grins) I've got a back up article or three... some horses that I know are comprehensive and that just need a bit of polish. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Relieved to hear. :) BTW, since you're into both medieval English history and horses, maybe you could explain the horse jargon in the source I quoted and "translated" at Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_Loudoun_Hill_(1296). I'd be interested to know just for curiosity. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "one dark dapple-grey horse" means a iron colored horse with not really spots but circles of darker grey hairs all over. See Gray. "of their bay horses?" bay is a color - Bay describes it. I assume that was the jargon you meant? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * unius equi nigri liardi , unius equi ferrando, and/or whatever  unius someri sui badii  means. Would there be a significance to these descriptions, like age, monetary value, or what not? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just identifications, by the color of the horse. There isn't any real age or other sort of identification. I'd guess they were ordinary riding horses, if they were warhorses they'd have been described as such. So the colors won't affect their value, quite honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Cardinal protector of England
If you have the interest, I'd be very appreciative if you could take a glance at this article at some point. I've been forced to rely on a single source and I think the article could benefit greatly from some basic knowledge about the English church, which (from the looks of it) is your area of expertise. No worries. Savidan 01:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid to say that the time frames a bit beyond my normal. I'm very much an early and high medievalist, not late medieval. Anything much past 1300 and I am out of my depth. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

English monarchs
Yes, the defaultsortkeys were of the format "England, James I of" which led to a category where there were many entries incorrectly under 'E'. Tim! (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Antony Bek
Hi, I noticed that you did some extensive work on Antony Bek early last year, and then abandoned it. Was there any special reason for this? It seems to be pretty close to GA status; I'd be happy to review it if you finish it. Lampman (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's because I've got Fraser's History of Anthony Bek sitting on my shelf awaiting time to digest it. Also a new article on his family was just published in Medieval Propospography which I also need time to digest. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Fertilisation of Orchids
Having gone over the sources considerably on Fertilisation of Orchids, I'll be most grateful if you can do a source check, as discussed in the restarted FAC at Featured article candidates/Fertilisation of Orchids/archive1. Thanks for your help with this, dave souza, talk 23:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Notice that you've commented, as stated there have been some additional sources added, with care being taken to check them out. If you can run another source check that'd be great. . dave souza, talk 23:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick question
I saw the Lipizzaner stallions perform today, but that's not what I want to ask you about. :) I'm preparing to take Yukon Quest to FAC and was wondering if you might have the time for a source check before I do. It's failed twice before, so I'm taking extra care to make sure the third time is the charm. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Link? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Doh! I meant Yukon Quest. Sorry about that. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Penda of Mercia
The above article is about a 7th-century Mercian (surprisingly!) king. I noticed that it's up for a FA review and thought that you might be able to help. Medieval bishops and saints may be more your thing, but I thought it was worth asking. Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The person to ask is . Awadewit (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Georgia Institute of Technology
Were your concerns on Featured article candidates/Georgia Institute of Technology/archive1 sufficiently addressed? Thanks for your help :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 08:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources: reliable or not, that is the question...
Hi Ealdgyth. I saw the notice on your userpage indicating that you're off doing article stuff these days, but I was wondering if I could pester you for a favour. I recently listed List of brain tumor patients at WP:FLRC as about 15% of the citations were dead or produced remote server errors. I also had a dip into the active sources and found what I felt were number of non-WP:RS's. I know you're busy, busy, busy, but if you do find yourself yearning to get back to your marvelous analysis of sources' reliability, I'd be very grateful. The FLRC for any comments you may wish to make can be found here. All the best, I hope all is well with you. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI - courtesy notice
Your name has been mentioned in a report at WP:ANI. --Philcha (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Bassett
Ealdgyth, did you get a pdf of the Bassett? If so, could you forward it? Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not yet gotten one. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Frank Barlow (historian)
In case you hadn't seen, your old standby died aged 98 in June, although the Times has only published his obituary today (well behind Charles Matthews). Johnbod (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. I remember meeting him and arguing with him (as a lowly undergrad no less) about his bio of Rufus back in the early 90s. At that time, i figured he was ancient... now I know better. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

FA for Otto Julius Zobel
You made some comments at the FAC for Otto Julius Zobel which was not promoted. Although your specific comments were addressed, you did not return to either support or oppose the article. Can I ask what changes would induce you to support this article at a FAC, if indeed you would?  Sp in ni ng  Spark  17:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Archbishop Lang
You seem to be away at present, but when you have a moment you might like to look at this. In May, when I said I was going to do it, you wrote, "Why did you decide to work on an archbishop?? Did he eat ponies in the arctic too???" Disappointingly, it seems he didn't, but as you're the archbishops expert (albeit extremely ancient ones), any comment you can make would be much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking sources
Once again, thank you so much for your awesome work at FAC. I am seeing a trend in better awareness about sources, which is good, because it means you won't be the only one even looking at sources in a lot of these candidates. The Pokemon FAC is firmly in hand, I think—it is my and another editor's attention to sources that resulted in those tags. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikivoices FAC review
I wanted to invite you in particular to our recording, since you check every FAC, my dear Ealdgyth. :) If you can come, please sign up here. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invite, but I don't do Skype. Hell, I don't even have my own cell phone! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, just wanted your source expertise! ;) Awadewit (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

McDonald's Cycle Center FAC
I have replied to your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy Epikleros anniversary
Hi Ealdgyth, I believe it's been just over a year since I peer-reviewed Epikleros, and promised to improve it! To celebrate I have uploaded the latest version of my sourcing diagram. Work is, as always, ongoing behind the scenes. Dr pda (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply
Hi Ealdgyth,

I made a reply to your comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie/archive2.

Thanx!

ATC. Talk 02:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Chicado V
Okay I've had a read through the article from a non-horsey point of view. I'll post my comments on the article talk page, not to clutter things up here.  Xan  dar  02:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks very much, very useful. I'll attend to them in the morning, it's approaching my bedtime here in the States. Again, thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article Nomination German Unification
I've renominated the Unification of Germany article. It seemed a shame that all your work and that of the other readers would be lost, so will notify those who did take the time to read it. I've also included a section on the rationale about the bibliography and footnoting format (your primary concern) in the talk page. I think we're reasonably good on it. I'd appreciate your support. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably noticed already, but there's something else ...
You've probably already noticed that I switched your convert template for hands, which I think gives a nicer result.

I'll be calling on you shortly to give your opinion on this article, one that I've been working on recently. I've still got some work to do on it before GAN, but I ought to warn you before you take a look that that the story is quite distressing. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Read about that recently. It's messed up. Along with these people. --Moni3 (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's very hard to understand, and don't forget Harold Shipman. Brady's getting to be an old man now, and has been trying to die for the last 10 years at least. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Good job on St Wilfrids Pic
Thanks -- Wilfridselsey (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No Line on the Horizon FAC comments
Hello there, thanks for the question you raised on sourcing on the No Line on the Horizon FAC. I believe I've answered your query regarding the reliability of those five references. I'd appreciate it if you could talk a look at my response and see if I've addressed the issue thoroughly enough. Since your talk page asks for the link, here it is. Cheers (and thanks!), MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello again; I think I've clarified the reliability of the remaining sources now. In the case of U2Gigs, one of the owners and operators has clarified how they collect their information at my request. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bug you, but I'd appreciate if you could see if your concerns have been addressed. I'd hate for the nomination to fail because I wasn't proactive enough in contacting those who had concerns. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If you get the chance...
...can you have a look over Postman's Park? Ideally I'd like someone with no connection at all to London to have a look through it, to see if there are any obvious-to-me-but-not-to-everyone-else-isms that have slipped through. You'll like it; it's got bishops and Anglo-Saxons. And it may be the only article to combine the phrases "starring Natalie Portman and Jude Law", "the heaps of rotting corpses caused great public concern" and "hand-painted and glazed ceramic tiles". – iride  scent  23:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Eil.com
In your opinion, is this a reliable source? GARDEN 18:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Link? Really makes my life easier... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * link. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be reliable enough for the fact that something exists, but all questions of reliablity depend a bit on the context of the information being sourced. It would not be reliable for a BLP, for instance. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies, didn't realise you would respond here. It is being used in Intimacy (Bloc Party album) and has been criticised in Featured article candidates/Intimacy (Bloc Party album)/archive1.  You have already commented there and did not bring it into dispute which is why I'm double checking with you.  GARDEN  19:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Submitted dominant white for GAN
Hey there. I just wanted to give you a heads up. I'm moving in about a week so I figured it's now or never! Thanks for all your help on it. Countercanter (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Amazon.com
Hi Ealdgyth! You're an expert on sources, right? :) If you're not too busy, can you answer my question here? Thanks,  The left orium  15:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't answer questions on that noticeboard, mainly so that there is a source of "independent" review of my ideas on sources. If I start commenting over there, then there's less chance for third-party opinions. (The other reason is I only have SO much time in life...) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked the question a week ago so I doubt I'll ever get an answer on the noticeboard. Could you answer the question here or at the FAR instead? (I understand if you're too busy, tough).  The left orium  16:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Mumbai ref formats
We fixed the formats. Pl reply at FAC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hometech (talk • contribs) 05:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review of Miss Meyers
Is forthcoming. I have to be honest, this looks like an article that might be fundamentally incapable of being a GA, but I'll give it a good-faith review. Nosleep break my slumber 17:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be interested to know why you think so, based on the criteria. It covers all the main aspects of the mare's life and career. Yes, it's not long, but it's comprehensive - birth, racing career, breeding career, legacy. There is no length criteria for GAs, just covering all the bases. You might want to check out Easy Jet or Go Man Go, two featured articles on Quarter Horse racehorses, to see the major aspects of a horses' life. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know there's no formal length requirement, but three paragraphs and five references doesn't exactly seem broad, let alone comprehensive, to me. And of course you think it satisfies GA, you wouldn't have nominated it if you didn't. The two articles you linked here are easily three times the size of Miss Meyers, so I'm not sure they're such a good argument. Nosleep  break my slumber 19:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm afraid those are the existing references that discuss her. If you can find other references that discuss her, I'll be happy to include them. Note that she didn't have a large number of offspring, so her breeding career section is small. Nor did she race a long time, so that isn't long. But those aspects of her career ARE covered, as well as her breeding and her death. She's a mare, and comparing her life to a stallion's life is always going to look skimpy. Perhaps you might inspect Chicado V or Garrett's Miss Pawhuska, two GAs on mares. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me remind you Nosleep that the GA criteria (which I really do suggest that you read), does not require an article to be comprehensive, simply that "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". If you believe that there are some "main aspects" that are not covered then it is for you to say what they are. Article length or number of references is irrelevant, unless and until you can have the GA criteria altered to incorporate your own personal preferences and prejudices. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully suggest that you need a new sounding board. This guy has made me Hitler because of one comment. He has made it clear that he is not here to help or improve anything. This'll be my last word on this matter. Nosleep break my slumber 22:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I will warn you again to stop making personal comments. Isn't there some kind of rule that the first one to mention the Nazis loses the argument anyway? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I've apologized to Nosleep, and as far as I'm concerned, we are about done with the subject. Obviously it's a full moon today and everyone, including me, is cranky. Let's let it lie, okay? (in other words, take it off my talk page, please.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I take very grave exception to comments like "he has made it clear that he is not here to help or improve anything", but in deference to your talk page and your wishes I'll say no more. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Full technicolor
"'I'd apologize for Malleus, but well... he's himself."

That'll larn ya; don't ask for my opinion if you don't want to hear it, in full technicolor. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know you well enough (grins). It's been a crappy morning. Did you catch the to-do over on Talk:Cosmo Gordon Lang? That was going on at the same time the Miss Meyers stuff was going on as well as the alt text stuff for Penda of Mercia. Oh, and did I mention that someone decided we didnt' need


 * and


 * so I'm dealing with the nitpicky cleanup on that? Not to mention my off-wiki game-job related crap... I do feel I could have handled things better, but I've apologized and that's all one can do. It's not like I'm going to give anyone a chance of putting me at RfA so it won't come back to haunt me (grins.) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Putting the prospect of RfA behind you is very liberating. It's a crap job anyway, and the pay's lousy. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * With getting close to 40,000 edits, a lot of them involving source issues at FAC, I figure I'd get too many folks out to get me back. And, to be honest, what use would I make of the tools? Quite honestly, we're supposed to be writing articles, and I try to avoid anything that doesn't involve that or improving articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking back I'm surprised at how infrequently I've felt the need for any of the administrator tools. An odd deletion of a page I created by mistake, a few moves over redirects, perhaps a couple of deleted pages I wanted to look at, but that's about it. My motivation was simply to help out with some of the chores, but the door to the janitor's closet was firmly shut in my face, which although it upset me at the time I now look back on as a blessed escape. I'd be very surprised if anyone could rack up 40,000 (manual) edits and get through RfA in the current climate, but I think that's a good thing. It means that the people doing the real work of writing keep on doing that real work, and don't get sucked into the trivial squabbling that characterises so much of wikipedia. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. So all those months—if not years—I slaved over


 * and


 * were wasted? Thus are we mere mortals punished. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They got merged into the plain Template:Archbishop, which I suppose is all to the good, right? At least they did the substituting of the new infobox, which was more than I actually expected. Mostly, it's working as intended, just some small glitches, nothign I can't deal with in the normal course of editing. I never understood why it was a bad thing we had specific ones, but whatever... On the RfA... I look at it as I'm doing so much better work at articles, why should I demean myself with janitorial services? (tongue is very firmly in cheek here). There are some good admins, but I'd rather be in yours and Sandy's company, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Trust me. Sandy's much safer company than I am. She'll be here for as long as she wants to be, but I'm on borrowed time. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You'll forgive me if I prefer BOTH of you, and intend to work to keep you both around. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Icelandic horse
Hi Ealdgyth! I'm starting work on taking Icelandic horse to FA, and was wondering if you'd have a few minutes to look it over. General thoughts on sourcing and alt text would be most helpful. I've already put it up for PR, and once it gets through there I'm going to ask Malleus to look it over for prose, as well as Awadewit for images and Eublides for alt text. Any other recommendations on things to do before FA would be appreciated. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

 * Hi Ealdgyth,


 * I found and changed all of the non-reliable sources to reliable ones at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie/archive2, accept for this one: http://blogcritics.org/video/article/dvd-review-the-naked-brothers-band/. Though, the site might not be so reliable; a professional author wrote it, it explains more here: http://blogcritics.org/writers/ann-hagman-cardinal/.


 * If I could find another source, I would but some information aren't referenced anywhere else, or some reliable sources have inaccurate information, e.g. All Media Guide says that the band was called The Silver Bullets, but it wasn't it was The Silver Boulders; though I can't find a source explaining about The Gold Boulders, even that blogcritics article is wrong, and other sources that are reliable say that it was called The Golden Boulders, which is wrong. I actually don't know what to about The Gold Boulders situation.


 * ATC . Talk 00:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Images
It was still pretty huge - of course I have my images preference set to 11 (er no, 300px) & they are certainly better for those at standard (180). Johnbod (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I could go with a fixed width, but MOS is now saying use the multiplier effect thingie. ARGH! Images all day... blech! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So whazzup wit' dis image tweaking on da TB's? Looks interesting, but not sure huge images needed throughout??  Of course, I'm also curious to know where you learned to do that tweak for the places where it IS cool!  Can you toss me the link to the instruction page?   Montanabw (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm? What tweak are you talking about? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Making all the photos in the TB article twice the size they were before -- or was that someone else's work??  Montanabw (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's adding a upright=2.2 parameter. You can vary the number (which is the ratio that the pic will be enlarged) a bit but it just automatically ups the pic over the default, whatever folks have theirs set at. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Um Hmm. I was wondering why it was needed... Not sure the article benefitted from having everything so big, but then I have a small laptop screen that I usually use, big photos make for narrow text columns for me, though I also like how you can set certain small photos to display larger without setting a specific px parameter.  Handy tool, definitely.   Montanabw (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)