User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 13

Comments

 * (adding date stamp so it archives) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding as a side comment - I freaking HATE that stupid talkback template. If you can bother with the template, you can write something out. And using it without a header or a sign is just annoying as all hell, as it never freaking ARCHIVES! There... I feel better after ranting. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's encouraging that I've found one person who shares my sentiments re that obnoxious template. Now if we could just napalm all wiki-cookies and smiley face images. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Check out the instructions on the top of my talk page - the talkback banner is officially banned there :-)  Majorly  talk  14:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Review request
Not on sources, but if you want to give comments on those, that's fine. Amazing Grace has quite a bit about the Anglican Church, and since you have experience writing about bishops and stuff, I'd appreciate your input. It has a peer review. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. I'll try, but I'm really a pre-1300 kinda gal. Unless it involves horses. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone on a horse once sang "Amazing Grace". Does that inspire you? --Moni3 (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Steve Dodd
Hello Ealdgyth, I'm working on the above article (it is just finishing up at GA at present has just passed GA), and am looking for feedback on avenues for further improvement. I wondered whether you would be willing to look at it from your usual FA source-checking POV, so i can be alert to any issues (esp. how the filmography sourcing would fare at FAC - this isn't my usual kind of article). Other feedback would also of course be welcome, but I know you're a busy editor :-) All assistance gratefully received. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made some minor improvements to the refs - as far as I could find - and discuss the four cases you raise on the article talk page. When you have a moment, i'd welcome your feedback on those comments and how this might play at FAC. I'm sure that, at FAC, your word pretty much goes - i'd be surprised if articles made it through when you have outstanding source queries. So I'd value your suggestions - even if they mean removing facts from the article. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Longchamp -- William Longchamp

 * Sorry, I just now noticed your message. When i was contributing a lot I would check through the hist of my talk whenever I saw the orange bar, but since I wasn't expecting any messages, I didn't. Therefore your message was superseded by someone else's. If you understand what I mean. William Longchamp looks groovy to me . Ling.Nut (talk) 12:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have had more time to look at Longchamp. I have several questions and see some potentially unclear passages. I am also wondering whether some passages could be reorganized a bit for additional clarity. I am very very busy now, unfortunately. What's your time frame on this? I'll try to get on it... Wednesday. Or maybe tonight, but I won't promise anything. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wed is fine. He's already at FAC, but should not be a problem waiting until Wed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Chancery
Haha, yes, I saw you adding links to a bunch of articles on my watchlist and wondered what you were up to. A scriptorium to me means a place where books were copied, a rather boring job done by rather bored monks, but a chancery is where exciting charters were drawn up. I had a class about medieval diplomatics a few year ago, and I wrote a paper about the French chancery, so I can mine my notes for stuff to add. I can think of all sorts of things for the crusader chanceries, but I'd have to dig a bit further for sources. The most recent work about that is Die Kanzlei der lateinischen Könige von Jerusalem by Hans Mayer, but it's enormous, and, well, very German. Our articles are pretty random...we have diplomatics and papal diplomatics, all sorts of disjointed palaeography articles, chancellor, chancellery, etc etc. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll leave that to someone else to sort out. Quite honestly, I've got enough on my plate, since I'm only to Lincoln on my bishops. I just got tired of the lack of a good "chancery" article. Hopefully some others will add more stuff (hint hint). I might tackle English Chancery at some point, but not any time soon. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh,, and if you can think of a better title, go for it. I thought about Chancery (medieval governmental office), but boy, THAT was too long. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just added a section for France. It's a 20-page essay condensed into one page, so I hope it makes sense. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Justus
Hello! Why wouldn't this pic do at FAC? It is not a freedom of panorama issue according to Commons:Freedom of Panorama, so I am a bit more puzzled than usual. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No source information, that's why. The original is a crop of a picture that I can't find on commons anymore. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's important to have a shot of this statue, it might be worth while to ask the owner of this image to change license from cc-by-nc to cc-by. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not that bothered, the statue isn't even close to being contemporary so its value is only marginal. If there aren't any contemporary likenesses, we can always go with a map, or a page from a manuscript, or a view of archaelogical excavations. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Makes perfect sense. Many thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Goldopphin Arabian
Hi E, There is a legitimate question about the various owners of the Goldolphin Arabian at Talk:Godolphin Arabian. The dates don't seem to match up properly to the right people This may be closer to your area of expertise than mine. Want to pop over and take a peek at the discussion? Thanks. Montanabw (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Journal des savants
I forgot to ask, did you get to look at that volume of the Journal des savants when you were at the library? Adam Bishop (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Did not make it last month, am actually planning on tomorrow, have the information printed out and will look at it hopefully tomorrow. (Assuming that I'm not building an ark instead, since we got almost four inches of rain yesterday and are due for another one or two inches today!) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent...that's what I got online too. I guess it was all in Joshua Prawer's imagination! Adam Bishop (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Amador Valley High School
Hi Ealdgyth - thank you for helping out the Amador Valley High School article in the past. Over the past few months - I've addressed your comments as well as the comments of quite a few other editors on the article. The article is now going through Featured Article review (again) and I was wondering if you would be interested in leaving your comments. Thank you - Deltawk (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

see Talk

 * see Talk:William Longchamp. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh PS the temporary version at User:Ling.Nut/Sandbox may be easier to read. Ling.Nut (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

New FAC
Do you want me to add the publisher (Lee Enterprises) to all Quad-City Times articles? C T J F 8 3 chat 21:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's not necessary on newspaper citations, as long as the listed publisher is pretty obviously a newspaper (so New York Times is fine for something from the NYT, but if you are citing some obscure newspaper that's put out by a big media company, it may help the cause of reliablity to put both title of the newspaper and the publishing company in...) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. I've fixed all your concerns on the FAC then. C T J F 8 3 chat 21:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Flag of Singapore/archive2
I snagged everything you wanted there. About the two sources; the first one, the National Arts Council is an agency of the Singapore Government. The second link, I added http://linc.nus.edu.sg:2084/record=b1604520*eng which is also an government entity. All FOTW was doing was reposting the law that http://linc.nus.edu.sg:2084/record=b1604520*eng talks about. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Source check, if you have the time
If you have any spare time, if you could check my sources for Edward Drinker Cope? I think I've weeded out all the bad refs and it should be good to go, but I'd love another pair of trained eyes. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanksgiving
I'm sorry to hear it's a hard one for you; keep your chin up, enjoy what memories you can, and I hope you have a good day :) All the best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

L'incoronazione di Poppea FAC here
Hi, would you mind briefly revisiting the FAC and commenting on the "cite web" versus "cite book" issue which another reviewer is pursuing? My view: Oxford Music Online is a website: the cite web template fits the circumstances and provides all the required information. His/her view: Oxford Music Online is equivalent to a book, so "cite book" should be used. For the life of me I can't follow the complicated reasoning and examples he/she adduces. Perhaps another voice (of some authority) can settle the issue? Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii hotspot
Found a replacement. I'm wondering if I could use its handle instead because the handle has the abstract, and that's all I need for the article. Res</b> Mar 00:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah I'm refering to Featured article candidates/Hawaii hotspot/archive1. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 00:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Either is fine. Do both and get bonus points? (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish. :) Brownie points are never a bad thing. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 04:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've answered most of your comments. It is a juvenille encyclopedia, but does that neccesarily make it bad? I used to love that book when I was a little kid. Would spend hours reading and rereading it...its falling apart, actually xD <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 13:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOUR
We keep the WP:FOUR queue manageable by asking nominators to review as many articles as they have nominated. If you get a chance please drop by and review a couple nominations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This FOUR award seems rather pedestrian. Isn't there a ONE award, for an article taken straight to FAC? --Malleus Fatuorum 05:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Hello Ealdgyth, you provided some helpful comments as the GA reviewer at the article Bale Out. The article is now at WP:FAC, and your input would be appreciated at the FAC subpage for the article. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Dan Povenmire
Hello, Ealdgyth. I took care of the issues at the FAC for the article and would appreciate it if you checked back in on it. Thanks,  The Flash  <sup style="color:black;">{talk} 01:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've found new supporting evidence on the reliability of a source you brought up on the FAC. Can you please check it out? Thanks!  The Flash  <sup style="color:black;">{talk} 18:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happened
to this? :) <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 23:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing
Apparently I've missed out of the chance to go over William, being promoted already. Congrats on that anyway. I guess I can get straight to Hemming's Cartulary. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Hemming's is gong to be a bit, I've got to track down who owned the manuscript. It appears that it might have been owned by Matthew Parker before getting into Robert Cotton's hands, but that's another whole set sources that have to be consulted... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, I went over it and left some comments. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
...for your excellent work at FAC. Fainites barley scribs 22:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Meet Mellitus!

 * The sentences in Mellitus are looking a bit rat-a-tat-tat &mdash; kinda all the same length and similar structure etc. Reordering some phrases/clauses, adding a couple snakes and a couple short sharp sentences etc. for variety would be good. As always, I haven't had time to really really look at it, but it looks pretty good as far as I have seen. It doesn't have any sentences that seem misplaced to me. Later! Ling.Nut (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well... I'll try. (more like, I'll let Malleus keep massaging, it's safer that way..) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oooh pressure. I can't handle pressure. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No pressure would be begging either of you to polish up Walter de Coutances, which I just spent the last TWO days expanding. I hate hate hate the Angevins... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is Greenway volume 3 described once as "Lincoln: Archdeacons of Oxford" and once as "Lincoln: Bishops of Lincoln"?
 * Because we're going to two different urls there, one to a subpage dedicated to the archdeacons one to the subpage dedicated to the bishops. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it Loyn or Lyon?
 * Loyn, annoyingly. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Angevins don't hate you. Where is the love?
 * They haven't showered me with jewels yet, so I'm not seeing the love...Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Are "itinerent" and "comission" British sp.?
 * I'm not even sure they are correct Yank spelling (laughs) I cannot spell, so spelling is subject to change without notice. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Possessives -- stop me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't they all be "Coutances's"? Anyhow:
 * "Coutances family"
 * "Coutances' part"
 * "Coutances' attempt "
 * "Writing about Coutances time "
 * "Coutances' ambition"
 * "obey Coutances' if "
 * "under Coutances' successor"
 * "Coutances's suffragan bishops"
 * "end of Coutances service"
 * I was taught, years and years ago, that names ending in s were made possessives with just an ' at the end. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's your choice. I prefer "s's", as in "Burns's", because that's the way you'd say say it (or at least the way I'd say it), but "Burns is OK as well. Whichever you favour though, obviously the article needs to be consistent. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I went through earlier and caught all the above to Coutances' ... I do not claim I caught them all. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems like you never wikilink "see". I added a link to Episcopal see to your other article; hope that's the right link. In any case, you need to link the first instance of this term in every article...
 * It's so you feel useful. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ling.Nut (talk) 06:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting new website
I thought you might like to take a look at this, if you didn't know about it already. Awadewit (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oooh, I did not. How... handy for my work on Leges Henrici Primi (whimpers). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Talking points
RE:Featured article candidates/Hawaii hotspot/archive2


 * http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=172197 was cleared by WP:RS/N: Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
 * Current ref 51 ("The Horn of Africa". On the Volcanoes of the World. Science Channel. 2009-06-06) is this a TV show? If so, you need to give a bit more information in order to make it clear to readers.
 * I added "Tv show" under work. Is that good?


 * Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. I noted SDSU, NYU, but there may be others.
 * Cleared as far as I know, except for the K### thing at the end as it identifies itself as such.


 * Other stuff which has been cleared already has been left out :) <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar Hohoho 02:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) YOu still need to address the DK juvenile encyclopedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, forgot about that. Gimmie a moment...<span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 22:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 23:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Mellitus
I've left a few more comments on the article's talk page, and when they're done or dismissed as risible I think the old boy will be ready for FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

7th Infantry Division FAN
Hello. I have responded to your concerns at the 7th Infantry Division FAN page and was wondering if you had any more. Thanks! — Ed! (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Cyclura nubila peerreview
Thanks for taking the time to read that piece and offer criticism. I went back and adjusted all those references, a few url's had moved since I first put the sources there (2007) and my formatting was hit and miss back then(obviously more miss!). The only one I did not fix was the very first one. It's a template used throughout the animal articles for IUCN...should I ditch it and use CITE WEB or something similar? Thanks again, looks like you have a full plate already!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sneaky trick... just take the accessdate out of the template. I've done it for you on the page. You must promise to only use these powers for good though! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, Cool! Thanks!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Marwari horse
Thanks for the peer review comments. I've replied, could you please take a look and see if my arguments for certain sources are valid? The link is Peer review/Marwari horse/archive1. Dana boomer (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * they look good. The one you removed was the "worst" of them, I was pretty sure the DNA one would work, but wanted you to start thinking prior to FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Pond Eddy Bridge PR
There, replied to your comments. The 1903 movie is a phonograph movie by Edison Manufacturing (Thomas Alva Edison). Feel free to take a look.<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT>32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 17:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Shale oil extraction peer review
Dear Ealdgyth. Thank you very much for your peer review. I answered to your comments at the peer review page. In general, removed all sources you questioned, except Laherrère, which I explained why this source should be considered reliable, and Farkas, which I listed at the WP:RS/N for comments. You also asked to spell out abbreviations in the notes. Could you please specify, which abbreviation you exactly mean? Thank you. Beagel (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The one I really noted was USGS. You're all over the place with it, sometimes USGS (which most folks even in the US won't know what it means) or United States Geological Survey. You need to be consistent, and I suggest, given the lack of knowledge of most folks about what USGS means, settling on United States Geological Survey. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I can't find any 'USGS' in the text or notes. I think that this was used in some earlier versions, but in the current text I am not able to find it. Could you please give the exact sentence or note where it is? Beagel (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seem to have caught them all. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Beagel (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

ISS FAC4.
Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, or who has contributed to the article recently, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Featured Article Candidacy with any suggestions you have for article improvements (and being bold and making those changes), whether or not you feel any issues you have previously raised have been dealt with, and, ultimately, if you believe the article meets the Featured Article guidelines. This is the fourth FAC for this article, and it'd be great to have it pass. Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

peer review battle of yarmuk
hi, thanks for your suggestions they were really helpful. u gave a total of 8 suggestion, i am done with 7 of them, the one tht i couldn't understand was Alphabetize your references. wht actually did u meant by saying tht please explain it to me. regards الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  19:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your source section, the various entries are not in alphabetical order, which is the standard practice for most FAs. Check out William Longchamp, for an example. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

by the way almost all the references given to gibbon in the article are further supported by modern sources, so is it all right using gibbon since wht ever he stated is now supported by modern historians as well. الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  21:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * siege of damascus
 * wht should i do ? except for gibbon there is no other source tht illustrates siege of damascus in such a detail.
 * Then cite the modern historians instead. It's always better to cite the newest sources possible, in order to show that you've consulted the best possible sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  22:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * if i remove gibbon then density of references will gonna look less (9 references r given to gibbon from total 48 references.) i remember in past, one user said for peer review of battle of yarmuk that "density of references" is low, so wht am i suppose to do if some in AFA again pointed tht out ? i m in either case trapped from both sides....


 * Someone is going to point out the outdatedness of Gibbon, however, so you're probably best by... citing the information to newer sources (which you claimed above backed up Gibbon's information, so it shouldn't be an issue.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  22:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * now thats the problem,,, those sources tht back up gibbon are already cited in the article. they are nicolle and akram.
 * There is no problem citing them again, quite honestly. You can use a source quite a lot in one article, without it being a problem. Also, can you please indent your replies with colons when you reply? If you need help with how to edit talk pages, see Indentation. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ok thanks, thts a good idea i will do tht, many thanks for ur help.

regards الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  22:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver
Hey Ealdgyth. I responded to your comments at the FAC page for 2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver, and was hoping you could give me some feedback at your earliest convenience. As I said there, it seems to be that most of the sources in question are used for information regarding the assessment of the threat or the media coverage of it, and many of them are used in a very limited context. That being said, I'm anxious to hear back from you more to see if you think some of the sources should go, or if some can be used if the text or prose is changed a bit... — <font color="#C0C0C0">Hunter <font color="#595454">Kahn  ( c )  21:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want...
You could always send a few curve balls my way. I'm sure I can handle a fairly general article of another type. RB88 (T) 23:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Trust me... I don't want you burning out. I aboslutely HATE popular culture and music and celebrity and movie FACs... you're doing PLENTY. ISS wasn't really badly sourced, just a lot of citations to check... always annoying. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Colds7ream (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Gilbert Foliot
With all due respect, what you regard as trivia is irrelevant. Wikipedia is a general encyclopaedia, not a learned treatise on medieval history. I am an historian by trade. I am also interested in films. The two are not mutually exclusive and I do not regard the portrayal of an historical character in a serious film as being trivial. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replied on the talk page of Gilbert. I dont' have a problem with the information if its discussed in secondary sources as being of importance to Gilbert (or any of the other bishops you've inserted the information into), but when it's just a bare listing without secondary sources, it has no significance, according to my reading of the "In popular culture" articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary
Great edit summary. Didn't understand a word of it :-).  Btw, I've responded on the FAC. Cheers, Colin°Talk 22:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL... my browser will "autofill" edit summaries, and sometimes if I'm in a hurry, I don't look too close and get one that's really related to some other article... glad you enjoyed my boo-boo! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you need this
Better than a barnstar, one of my favorite wiki- articles: On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. I'm not a fan of appeals to authority. (Heck, at the moment, I guess I am technically a historian, too!) Enjoy, and chin up! Montanabw (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to raise FT criteria to requiring 50% featured
This passed, so your FT(s) need more articles featured by 1 September 2010, or else they will become GTs - rst20xx (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the two I'll need is already at FAC, and should pass in the next week or so (it has two and a half supports and no opposes). the other is at PR... should be able to make it with no problem at all. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Taxes taxes oh the taxes
I reviewed yours, so now can you review mine? :) <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 21:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer review/Flag of Japan/archive3
Most of the time, the FOTW page is the only English pages available. So what I have is the official Japanese laws or drawings on the flags, followed by FOTW so anyone who does not speak Japanese can at least figure out what it is. Everything else I have done. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and review: it means a lot having another person take time to see the work! I would be grateful if you could cast your eye over the article again now the references are inline. I have tried to pull the classic powerful studies such as Cochrane reviews, systematic reviews to ensure the science is the good stuff. Ashley Payne (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback thingie

 * adding date so it'll freaking archive. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Open question
Is Tammen notable for anything other than being Patrick Swayze's horse? Should we keep or prod tag? Montanabw (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. I don't think he won a national championship or anything. He was/is a nice horse, and all but... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My thinking, too. I may prod tag it, but I wonder what the probability is it will be readded. Thoughts?   Montanabw (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Pretty good, would be my guess. The real question is, what could the possible sources be? Strictly speaking, there probably are enough "independent" sources to do the article, but is it worth digging for them? And mainly, the articles have been done because he was Swayze's horse... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I tagged it. We will see if anyone cares.  The main sources will probably be Swayze's biography where he waxed mystical about the horse  bit, apparently (at least according to the MAH article).  And the promo stuff on the book -- Which I had more than an adequate dose of during AHA.  Nice fellow and all that, but the tributes, lordy, the tributes... got a bit old.  Probably will be a thing for another six months and then we won't have to worry about it.:-P   Montanabw (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
thanks for comments. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ealdred for Xmas?
Have you thought about nominating Ealdred (archbishop) for December 25, ? Christian holy figure, Christian holy day ... makes sense, and this was the day he crowned that dirty usurper king. ;) Or maybe another bishop is more appropriate? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Err.. no. I don't nominate for main page, because I hate main page day. Especially not Xmas, when I will be madly scurrying trying to clean up before the relatives descend on me for a visit until New Year's...

Philip the Arab and Christianity
Hello, Ealdgyth.

I very much appreciated your past help on my articles in peer review and at GA candidacy. Would you consider helping me again? I am currently in the middle of a GA nomination for Philip the Arab and Christianity, and I seem to be at loggerheads with the reviewer, Wandalstouring. In addition to points of dispute on content outlined in his comments and my replies in the review, we are in dispute on some very basic points of procedure: he finds it impossible to review an article written without detailed edit summaries, and I find it impossible to work with a reviewer who does not respond to points of dispute on the GA review.

He has requested a second opinion on the article on the GA nominations page, and has previously requested that I seek outside guidance on content, context, and style; he does not trust me on my own recognizance in these matters. As he wrote on my talk: "Your edits have not convinced me you are capable of handling the problems on your own within reasonable time, so do try to get some outside help?" Would you be willing to assist? I would be very much obliged if you were.

Regards, Geuiwogbil (Talk) 20:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Drop a note to Malleus also? He'd be a good one to have look at it, as I"m not sure I'm going to have a lot of time to devote to the issue. What is the main problem that Wandal is having with the article, anyway? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * RE Malleus: Will do.
 * I think Wandal's main problems are: (1) that the article does not do enough to contextualize the evidence presented, and (2) that it does not (I am not as sure on this point) make its structure clear and readable.
 * He also has a concern that the article does not reflect "scientific opinion", which sounds completely absurd to me. When he uses the word, I feel like I am entering some weird pre-Popperian universe. I am currently following works published by Dumbarton Oaks and Historia, which are, as far as I am aware, just about the most positivist publishers in the English-language Classics market. Is this a language issue? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dumbarton Oaks is, from my recollection, the premier publisher of late Antique and Byzantine secondary works. Keep in mind, I initially intended to study early Christianity in college, but got seduced by Anglo-Norman studies, so while I have a working knowledge of the time period you usually write in, I'm not as well versed as I would expect for more medieval subjects, but the two folks I took grad seminars with that were studying the late Roman and early Byzantine time period were always reading something put out by DO. I read the review page, and read both of your talk pages, and I still can't quite make heads or tails of what is going on. You've read enough of my reviews to know that I favor rather explicit "this is wrong and here is why" reviews, but everyone is different in their reviews. I'll try to get to things tomorrow or this weekend. I hope. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ealdgyth. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked it over, and while it's very much an article you've written (i.e. very dense and full of citations) there isn't much that I can see that's "wrong". I did do a google scholar search, and turned up the following:




 * which might be of help. Nothing jumped out at me as "wrong" with the historiography of the thing. Like you, I'm completely thrown by the use of "science" and "scientific" which seems very odd in a historical article. Malleus would be a better person on the prose than I. You seem to have covered most of the available literature... odd that more hasn't been written about Philip! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the check-over and the Scholar search. (I no longer have access to JSTOR and the like. Can you send me the PDFs?) The skimpiness of the literature is probably a reflection of the skimpiness&mdash;and confusion!&mdash;of the surviving evidence. We have the epitomators, the Historia Augusta, Herodian, the Sibyllene Oracles, a bunch of coins, Zosimus, Cyprian's letters, and we have Eusebius. Forging narrative or analytic history out of this soup is not an enviable task; a reviewer of the Cambridge Ancient History2's chapter on the emperors of the period, by J. Drinkwater, called it something like drudgery: a bare and uninspiring list of usurpations, invasions, and titles. Philip is right in the middle of all this, and the most any of the secular sources have to say about him is that he had a big festival in Rome, made an unhappy peace with the Persians, and probably murdered his predecessor. And these things, too, are lies (or so John York tells me), circulated to bolster the prestige of Decius and the old Latin nobility. Sigh. Better to work somewhere with big stocks of letters, documents, and inscriptions&mdash;the late fourth century, the Nicene affair, or the years covered by Pliny's epistles. Or do archaeology.
 * Well. You have reassured me: I no longer feel like I am going insane. I will follow Malleus' advice: ask Wandal to fail the article, and bring it up through GAR. I will wait a bit first, though. Thank you again for the read-through. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 21:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Next time I go up to U of I, I'll try to remember to get those pdfs. I don't have access here in town any more, so it's an hour trip to the University of Illinois for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've put a copy of the pdfs here. Let me know when you've downloaded them so I can take them down. (P.S. Ealdgyth, if you ever need anything from JSTOR, I'd be happy to save you the trip. I can access it from whatever computer I'm sitting at.) Dr pda (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Got them. Thanks, Dr pda! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 04:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * U of I unwisely gave me a courtesy borrowers card. I've been busy taking out my limit, suitably "acquiring" them, and returning them, so going up there is something I do about once a month to turn in the old stack and get a new stack, but should I need something in a hurry, I now know who to ask! (Required nag... Epikleros.) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am actually working on Epikleros at the moment! Last week I finished going through all the ~400 Google Books results, which resulted in a list of about 100 books I need to consult. I've spent the last couple of evenings at the library and have knocked this down by 15. With luck I might finish this list over the Christmas holiday, though I suspect this may depend on my girlfriend :) Dr pda (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not incur the wrath of the girlfriend on my account, by any means. I know when my family arrives after Xmas i'm going to be too busy to do much.. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer review/Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu/archive1
we have addressed all the concerns raised by you. Thanks for your help. -- Car Tick  17:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

13 John
this is most interesting, but could you explain based on what you come to this conclusion? --dab (𒁳) 15:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, common knowledge among historians of the time is that indeed, 13 John or 5 Richard or 2 Henry II means the given year of the king's reign. Also, common sense... "...copies of the important Inquisition returned into the exchequer in 13 John." Does that Bible chapter talk about an Inquisition turned into the Exchequer (i presume the English Exchequer is meant here)? I checked on Wikisource, and 13 John is about the Last Supper and betrayal of Judas, hardly anything about a Inquisition. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I might add that it would be easier to discuss if the information was inline cited to something specific rather than three different books generally. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

William Longchamp
Might it be worth giving a few details of Longchamp's mission to Rome, or would that be too tangential? Nev1 (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have them, go for it. Don't want to overpower the rest of it though...Ealdgyth - Talk 23:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I see that mention of his death is already referenced to the passage I was going to use, so you know the details. I was going to add that William was going to represent Richard in a dispute with Walter de Coutances over the manor of Andeli which would be used as the site of Château-Gaillard. It only occurred to me because I've been working on the castle's article recently. Nev1 (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I covered that whole episode in more detail in Walter de Coutances, if you wanna add into Longchamp that it was connected to the whole thing with Andeli, that'd be fine. I didn't add any more details because it was mainly unimportant to Longchamp except that it provided him with a job to do, but since he died before the resolution of the whole problem, it kinda felt peripheral to him. (And let me tell you, that whole sorry episode was quite a mess!) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Halley's Comet
I think I've sorted your ref issues.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  17:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Zygoballus sexpunctatus peer review
Thanks for taking the time to comment on this peer review. I've replied to your comments and would like some additional feedback on the reliable sources issue. Thanks again. Kaldari (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Those should be okay if challenged, it may be that the source is left for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Economic history of China (pre-1911)
I've fixed all the issues. Can you give your support? Thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at the other FACs up, you'll see that I've been investigating all the candidates sources, not just yours. While I'd love to have time to devote to every candidate and do a full review of the prose and other aspects, I just don't have the time. It has been a failing of FAs for a while that no one was investigating the sources and commenting on the reliablity or non-reliability of them for quite a while, and I've tried to step up and help with that. I put my comments under "comments" so that folks don't think that I've done a full review, and I won't support or oppose unless I have time to do a full review of everything in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky and the Five at FAC
I've just nominated this article for FAC. Thanks very much for your help in getting it ready and look forward to your continued input. Jonyungk (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Christmas
I have nothing to offer as a gift though except Justus, who I think can now be thrown to the lions at FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't mention the word gift ... I just got done with 10 straight hours of shopping ... Gift is a four letter word, isn't it? (Seriously, thanks SOOO much. Tomorrow I'll be properly appreciative..) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Tomorrow I'll probably be either dead drunk or asleep. so don't sweat it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Authentic
I created a page on my user page (if that makes sense) in prep for a real page on wikipedia. could you help with editing?? Go to it at User:Taylor Lane/Authentic (horse). Thank you SO much!! —Preceding undated comment added 23:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

Ho ho ho (or neigh neigh neigh)
Thanks and happy holidays to you too. Enjoy the dry turkey. I know I will. RB88 (T) 01:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Favour?
Could I ask you for a bit of help? I damaged Protestant Reformation accidentally due to editing via cell phone. Could you fix it by taking the 18 Dec edit? Happy Christmas! RelHistBuff


 * I noticed this so thought I'd step in. I've reverted back to the this version from 18 December, I've done the same myself a few times. Nev1 (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Lesson learned. Never edit with a cell phone! I thought the undo button would be safe. RelHistBuff (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately not, the buffer's limited. Rollback works though fine (but that's another mistake I've made on a phone). Nev1 (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad to know it's all straightened out... I was out being social with friends and having a few.. so my editing isn't the safest idea in the world... thanks Nev for taking care of it! Ealdgyth - Talk 04:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Richard Barre
The article Richard Barre you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Richard Barre for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: PASE...
I tried those links and nothing happened, so assumed they were dead links and deleted them. I'll re-add again. Regards Scrivener-uki (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding citing
Do you have any suggestions how to cite this book? The title is a page long, and I've no idea who the author is, or the publisher. Nev1 (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Graves, Bibliography of English HIstory entry number 6358. He gives it as "Descriptive Catalogue of the Original Charters, Monastic Chartulary, Manorial Rolls, etc.: Constituting the muniments of Battle Abbey" author is Sir Thomas Phillips, 1835, published by Thomas Thorpe, London. Be careful with this, as it's probably not very reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'm treating it with caution, and it's being used to reference a relatively unimportant point in an article; hopefully I'll be able to find a better source, but it should do for now. Thanks again, Nev1 (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of the charters have been proven to be spurious... see Eleanor Searle's "Battle Abbey and Exemption" in English Historical Review 1968 p. 449-480. (I have it in pdf if you can't get it.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As a matter of general interest Ealdgyth, is there a point in time after which you'd consider historical accounts to be probably more or less reliable? The 1950s, for instance? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, if the book is incorrect, that would explain why I had to go far back for a source (the alternative was a book from 1871). Hopefully, reading through more sources should give me an idea of whether it's true or not. Once I've finished reading, I'll have to decide whether to keep it as a reference. Nev1 (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's more a matter of what's been researched in them. Some of the early transcriptions of various sources are not done as well as later ones. But, there are some works that are still generally reliable now.. John H. Round's works have stood up well, as well as some stuff by others. Edward Freeman's works are still useful also, even if the interpretations sometimes aren't so much in the mainstream any more. Freeman's work on Gundred, Countess of Surrey is still definitive, almost 120 years later. In this particular case, I know of Searle's work on the Battle Abbey stuff, so any early transcriptions would need to be used with care, keeping in mind her work. I've spent most of the day doing "bibliographical" work, reading bibiliographies of recent works on the Norman Conquest, seeing what works I don't have, and writing those down to acquire. There hasn't been a recent bibliography done on either medieval english history (Graves' covers Roman britain to 1485 but was done in 1975) or on the more narrow field I work in (Anglo-Norman Studies) (where Altshul's Bibliography is even older, 1969). Rosenthal did a bibliograph for later medieval England - 1377-1485 that is from 1994 and covers works published in the years 1975-1989 and supplements Graves... but... we're losing the Royal Historical Society's online bibliography, which is going subscription only on the 1st. Getting back to the question, there is no hard and fast rule, it all depends on what you're using the information for, and what it is. Facts are generally more durable than interpretations, so Freeman's work on Gundred is still sound, because it was narrowly focused on whether or not she was the bastard daughter of William the Bastard. However, few folks would use Freeman's interpretations of the Norman Conquest anymore, as his viewpoint has become outdated. Does that make sense? One reason I raise red flags at FAC when I see only older works used is that if you don't at least consult the newest works, you won't know if the facts you're citing have been disproven or not. I wouldn't dream of just citing Freeman on Gundred, I'd also cite Bates' work on William and Douglas' work on William, to show that the scholarship is still considered sound. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, thanks. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd go further; in some cases I'd consider older sources more reliable. The reason Richmond Bridge, for example, has so many references to obscure books dug up in Richmond Library despite there being plenty of shiny new books in the bibliography isn't that the new books are wrong; it's that IMO a book or article published in living memory of the events described is in some cases more likely to describe events accurately. (Little details like the crowd wrenching the gates off the hinges on the day the tolls were abolished are what separates a dull technical article from an interesting read, but it's the kind of detail no book other than an eyewitness account would include.) – iride  scent  22:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well... I don't get many eyewitness accounts in my line of work. Although the eyewitness stuff is great with the horses, and I try to add in what I can on that. (Although there is a totally different caveat on horses and pedigress, horse people LIE. All the time. They may not mean to, but most horsepeople can muddle a pedigree faster than a fisherman can make his minnow into a whale...) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

FAC - Apolo Anton Ohno
Hello Ealdgyth! I was wondering if you were satisfied with the concerns you noted on Apolo Ohno's FAC? I went through and added page numbers to the autobiography. Also, there is a discussion on the usage of the biography and there doesn't seem to be a big problem with using it to use add information about his early years. In regards to the use of http://www.worldshorttrack.com/index.asp link, I changed to another one (Apolo_Ohno)... the source was citing his personal bests (time) but if the source now isn't reliable... I wouldn't know where to find a better one. The times originally were on his official site but they had a makeover and the times deleted! Thank you for your time,  on camera <sup style="color:#B9B9B9;">(t)  02:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Ealdgyth!
Thanks for making the standards higher at FAC, Ealdgyth, and for all the work you do to make sure it stays high. May you stay high at Christmas, in whatever manner you choose. Have a wonderful holiday! --Moni3 (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC) (The Florida history and geography, civil rights, and miscellaneous topic homo. Or, more eloquently put by The Fat Man on WR, the industrious lesbian oddball from Florida)

Merry Christmas to you too, Ealdgyth! Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to the horse and bishop person, from the pulp magazine and Anglo-Saxon king person! Have a great holiday! Mike Christie (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess season's greetings from the Star Trek, video game and assorted paleontological history guy? If you need any assistance on them bishops, I'd be glad to help—it gets me out of my new media rut :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. (Is that you under all that armor?) And Merry Christmas to you too. Eubulides (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's not me. Although one of my horses hopes he'll grow up to be doing that... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Happy Christmas & New Year to you & all lurkers here. My wiki-card is Nativity at Night (Geertgen tot Sint Jans) - should be DYK on the day. Johnbod (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll just 'chime in' here to wish a splendid Christmas to you, too, and to the horses (do you also keep bishops in the stables?) and of course, an abnormally happy 2010. The medieval Britain and Ireland and what not guy, Cavila (talk) 11:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Belated Season's Greetings to you! I hope you had a wonderful, stress-free holiday, and that Santa gave you everything you wished for. Karanacs (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A very belated thanks for your greetings. Cheers, and Happy New Year, Dabomb87 (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays to you, too !
Ealdgyth, dear, so sorry for my late and neglectful, but sincere wish for a very happy and healthful New Year and decade!! I was traveling, had a blast, and drank far too much champagne :) (And now I want to know why Brianboulton didn't send me one of those gorgeous pics, but I got to enjoy it here on your page :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Brian's kissing up because half his articles end up killing ponies or dogs or cats! I went to bed early on New Year's Eve, and slept in. Right now we're trying to imitate a freezer outside, my horses are trying to destroy their blankets (Why??? When it's absolutely necessary that they wear them, must they destroy them???) and I'm finally free of stepdaughter so I might get some work done! Happy New Year to you! (But it's not a new decade, there is no year zero, so decades, centuries and milleniums begin on x1 not x0!) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well *I'm* calling it a new decade, so there ! :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, so I know it's not really a new decade, but it's more fun to say it is, so am I a hypocrite?? Also, this way we can celebrate twice, once now with the masses, and again next year with the intelligensia!  LOL!   Montanabw (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Alric
I have nominated Alric, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Alric. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cnilep (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Sacrifice (video game)/archive1
Hi, Ealdgyth. User:Rafablu88 is questioning over the reliability of three sources in this FAC. Although I have tried to explain that they are used as expert sources and primary source (and not as reliable secondary/tertiary sources), I am not sure if we are communicating over the same frequency. Could you weigh in at the FAC with your opinions? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)/archive3
Can you comment on the refs at Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)/archive3.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did. And am awaiting further responses about third party statements about the questioned site. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just removed the offending fact. It is relatively unimportant. Can you come by and give your stamp of approval now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

PASE
Hi Ealdgyth. If you're experiencing trouble trying to access the PASE database, like the rest of us, you can try the old one here. I expect that the new edition (PASE 2) will be again available soon though, hopefully with the old errors edited out. Cavila (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

John Baskeyfield
Hi there Ealdgyth. Thanks for your review of John Baskeyfield, I've responded on the GA review page. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Gilbert Foliot and fictional representations
I recall a fairly recent discussion about including fictional representations of Gilbert, which I see have now been removed. I just came across the way they've been dealt with in King Arthur though (see the Modern legend section), which is about spot on I think. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, to my mind, that's an excellent way to handle it. When (if!) I ever tackle Thomas Becket, I'll have to include a nicely well done section such as that. Actually, will probably need to include something like that on Norman Conquest of England which I'm working through ... slowly... slowly... (The current working list for FAC is Lightning Bar, Carucage, Hemming's Cartulary, and Thomas of Bayeux, in no particular order.) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Eadnoth
Cheers for your edits. In case you're wondering why suddenly all this stuff on the English East Midlands, it's a side-effect of working on the Oswald article (and I haven't forgotten about Historia de Sancto Cuthberto). Btw, I thought linking in the lead counted separately from the body ... is this not the case [any more]? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been a problem for me at FAC. I'm very much a "don't link" type of person, so I usually only link once for a term per article, so if it's in the lead, I don't link it again, and no one has complained yet! I poked at Liber Eliensis tonight, but didn't feel up to cracking Grandsen. I did get all the "List of Bishops of X" see also sections out of all the bishoprics, which counts for something, I suppose. And a few more sections sourced in Norman Conquest of England ... And can you imagine trying to create articles on every single witness to an Anglo-Saxon charter or writ??? I thought I was inclusionist! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And in case you hadn't guessed, I"m pleased someone else is working on the silly Anglo-Saxon bishops, so I don't have to! Every bishop someone else does, is one less I have to struggle through. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of service to your great project! After you've done all the bishops in England (have you been doing Wales too?), you can work on getting all those Domesday guys done! ;) I'm kinda tinkering with mini project of my own just now, getting all the Anglo-Saxon saints on to wiki (as seen at User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim/Saints and User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim/Sandbox_Templates). You're clearly busy just now, but if you (or anyone else here!) ever fancy it it'd be possible to do some stubby articles on any of the small ones using this article as a resource!
 * And yeah, the AfD is a strange one. If nothing else, how is the article supposed to be linked in the rest of wikipedia? It's not like we normally do articles on charters. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got a few featured topic ideas floating around, I think the big one I'll piddle with next is Companions of the Conqueror, detailing all the known companions at Hastings. I'd also like to do Henry I's new men. Benedictine reformers would also work, but ... that's more Anglo-Saxon bishops! I've not done Wales yet, I will when I'm more done with the English ones, likely when I get through the "main" bishoprics that existed when Carlisle was firmly established, not the "precursor" ones. Everyone mentioned in Domesday? (wobbles) That's a frightening thought! I did manage to acquire Green's English Sheriffs so you won't have to spoon feed me that at least. I've also been toying with playing more with the Cotton Library MS, at least the listing of them, since I did all that digging for Hemming's. There's never any shortage of things to work on, that's for sure! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You've seen User:Ealdgyth/Works In Progress that, right? It's generally what I'm sorta kinda working on, it's a better guide than User:Ealdgyth, since the main user page seems to attract stuff that often sees very little work.. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers! If you do the Henry's new men thing, I'm planning on bringing Ranulf le Meschin (updated occasionally in my userspace) to FA, and David I is already an FA. So, with the bishops you've already done (I assume some of them are Henry ones), that's you already well into it! Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone in Domesday is of course impossible, but having a template with the top 50 TRE and TRW is highly achievable! Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ARGH! No more ideas! I really don't need any more...Ealdgyth - Talk 02:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) And the Thacker and Sharpe book is at U of I awaiting me arriving to pick it up and take it home for a lovely home visit. Weather just has to warm up enough for me to be able to get there.. (we're doing lovely 6 °F for highs and -2 °F for lows, not counting wind chills. I don't dare leave the beasts that long!) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cold stuff. It's cold here too, but not that cold, and the library is just a few blocks away (though it is closed just now). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Since I see you may be heading in that direction at some point, I'll just inform you that I'm working on getting Eustace fJ's article out and have already done a decent part of it. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, Basset today, I think. Get him enough pounded out for a DYK, that'll make me happy. I planned to title him Eustace fitzJohn, so please to make the redirect at least? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar
Hello! I'm not at all sure that I am doing this correctly, but I just wanted to give you a barnstar. Thanks!

Brazil
Hello, Ealdgyth! I am currently working on the article about Brazil along with other editors. We have almost completely remade it from scratch. I noticed that you were one of the editors who were against the article's assessment to featured status. I was wondering if you could take a look in it, but not a serious overly detailed look because we are not finished yet. Just a quick look to see if we are going into the right direction. Thank you very much and regards, --Lecen (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

SECR K and K1 classes
Hello, I've noted your comments, and have taken appropriate action. Could you check over the improvements to make sure they are ok? Thanks.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Al-Durrah refs
Not sure there's really a need for this, Ealdgyth. Not that it's a big deal. But I was using Harvard ref style in the text -- Smith 2005 -- unless there was more than one Smith, or it was a newspaper story without a byline. I wanted the References section to be consistent with that, so that people could quickly identify what I meant by Smith 2005. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 16:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem was that half the time on the references you gave the full date in after the author's name, half the time not. I was just striving for some consistency with that. If you like, you may revert all my changes, but I thought it'd be appreciated that I did the changes myself instead of leaving a long list of tweaks (grins). Do note though, that if you revert, you might get flack for having some with full dates and some with years only. Also, there are other tweaks worked into mine that should be done again (mainly quotation marks around article titles, but also some other small tweaks like missing dates by the authors, etc.). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The full date was given when that author had more than one article, or where there was no byline. I think it was consistent. The normal thing is to write Smith 2005, where Smith is only used once as a source. No worries though. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 17:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

FACs
Hi Ealdgyth. I'll try and get to your Bishop but i don't think it'll be this week, i've snookered myself with too much stuff. Would you be willing to rescind your departure from International Space Station for long enough to check that this was a fair assessment, at least as far as your involvement was concerned? I feel a "not promoted" archive coming on in part because the page has got too complicated, and i'm trying to head off that side-issue and get back to the outstanding matters. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks fine enough. All that outstanding issues are enough into the realm of "other reviewers can decide" that I'm okay with things. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You spoil me, you do
That's all I'm willing to say, otherwise I'm going to need (BLEEPS). ;) RB88 (T) 22:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We love you. (grins at you). Ealdgyth - Talk 03:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ranulf
If you get time, can you review your new man Ranulf le Meschin? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 03:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Liber Eliensis GA
Hi there.

I've put some review notes up at Talk:Liber Eliensis/GA1 - a few textual queries, and a list of points that might be worth expanding, but otherwise a pretty good article so far! Shimgray | talk | 13:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ...and done. Thanks for responding so quickly - it's been a pleasure and an interesting afternoon's work. Shimgray | talk | 22:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hopefully it wasn't too dry and boring! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Vastly more interesting than the book itself, no doubt ;-) Shimgray | talk | 22:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * All depends on what you're looking for. Miraculous stories of how people who gave money to Ely got miracles and those who stole from the abbey met bad ends? Lots of those. Long lists of things given to the abbey? Yep, got'em. Long interminable discussions of lawsuits? Oh, yeah. But there are some interesting bits in all that stuff too... just... a monk wrote it! Their idea of a scandal is not getting up to sing compline or something... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, you underestimate them; they could be scandalous enough if they tried hard. Look at the twelfth-century monks of Durham - not only did they get excommunicated by their own bishop (twice, I think) during feuds, they tried to get the Archbishop of York lynched. Maybe things were just a bit more vigorous in the Turbulent North than in decorous Cambridgeshire, though... Shimgray | talk | 00:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know. (Look who got William of York to GA status (grins)) But the Ely monks were boring... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ooooh!
Tony1 won't like that, but it's your article, so your choice. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been that way on ALL my articles, and Tony may not like it, but he's not managed to get it written into the MOS yet so he can't object just on his own personal preference. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I've been pondering over this sentence in the lead: "It was introduced as a replacement for the older danegeld, last collected in 1162, which had become difficult to collect." We can probably drop "older", as that's kinda obvious, but it's the repetition of "collect" that's niggling at me. Could we, for instance, change "last collected" to "last imposed" without changing the meaning? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you can. Medieval taxes at this point were definitely "imposed". I'd not want to say that about a tax after Parliament got its feet underneath it, but we're well before that period here. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * How about "last levied"? Nev1 (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Need some help
I'm working on this article, trying to flesh out some background context to the practices of homosexuality before colonial occupation in Uganda. I found this:, a 47-page pdf that seems to be a chapter of a book, or written for this purpose. I cannot, however, find the book or the publisher apart from the hosting website, in French, that I am unable to read to ascertain who has published it. The article itself seems to be well-cited and well-written, and itself cited in a 2006 book on on the cultures of Uganda. I have used material from this author before when I cited from a book he co-wrote about homosexuality in Islamic societies in the Lesbian article.

I should confirm, lest you were wondering, that there is not an excess of documentation on the topic of homosexuality before colonial occupation in Sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, from much of the reading I have done in cleaning up this article, it seems historical revision is underway to negate there ever was. This is not for FA, just for accuracy. I am interested in your thoughts. --Moni3 (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A quick check on Google Scholar returned : this search which had the following highlights: Book he edited, chapter from a book he wrote, another book by an university press. I'd say he qualifies as a scholar on the subject and the page would satisfy WP:SPS pretty easily. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that's very good. I've actually never used a self-published source in an article. I am not sure how to cite it: Murray, Steven O. (2005). "Homosexuality in 'Traditional' Sub-Saharan Africa and Contemporary South Africa", Publication/Publisher. Does "self-published" replace "publication" with a link to the article and a retrieval date? --Moni3 (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd cite the web site. this google translate seems to show it's a site of some sort devoted to gay issues. He's not really self-publishing this, so you'd use the website. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok. I added the cite and some info. Thanks so much for being prompt and stuff! You are awesome. --Moni3 (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)